THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION AND AGE LIMITATIONS ON ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICE: FROM WOLF CASE TO CJEU'S JUDGMENT ON VITAL PEREZ v. AYUNTAMIENTO DE OVIEDO

The judgment commented on in these pages holds that the age limitations on the access to the State security services set forth by the autonomous regulations are disproportionate and contrary to the principle of equal treatment. After considering the objective requirements needed to perform these duties and any other possible circumstances related to the employment policy of the State concerned (the distribution of employment among generations, a minimum training period for the performance of police tasks or a reduction in cost), in the judgment of the Vital Perez case, the CJEU deems it unjustified that the maximum age to access the local police corps be 30. The judgment in the Vital Perez Case represents a change in the case-law tendency regarding the Wolf Case. In the latter, the CJEU did not consider that the 30-year-old limit to access the fire-fighters corps was discriminatory. The CJEU held that the physical conditions required for the access to the local police corps cannot be equated with those to access the fire-fighters corps which require extremely high capacities, as proven by scientific facts. Furthermore, unlike the Wolf case, the judgment in the Vital Perez case interprets the proportionality test in a stricter manner upon considering that the physical capacities required for the access to the local police corps can be properly assessed through the physical tests foreseen in the call for entries, age limitations being thereby unnecessary.