歐盟的就業年齡歧視是社會權的一環，而且也屬於禁止歧視的特徵之一，其目的在追求一個公平正義的勞動環境。相較於勞工遷徙自由及男女薪資平等待遇，年齡歧視在歐盟社會權的種類中發展較晚。但在2000年後，配合著歐盟年齡歧視法規的施行及歐盟法院的法律續造工作，就業年齡歧視已經逐漸受到重視。歐盟的平等待遇基準指令及歐盟基本權憲章中的平等與社會連帶章，係主要規範就業年齡歧視之所在。在歐盟法院具體化社會基本權的過程中，2010年Kücükdeveci案及2011年Hennigs & Mai案分別引用了歐盟基本權憲章第21條、以及第21條與第28條規定，兩者均具有相當程度的代表性。在老年化及少子化的時代來臨、以及面臨社會保險財務不足之情況下，歐盟已將高齡勞工就業歧視與促進就業政策予以結合，以兼顧人力資源的最佳利用。依據平等待遇基準指令規定，對於特定職業的種類及其執行設定一定的特徵，如其係重要的及具有決定性的職業上的要求的工作，而且係為追求一合法的目的、且符合比例性的要求時，即非歧視行為。惟以「約定的年齡」作為特徵，即顯得不具法明確性及法安定性。歐盟法院及德國聯邦勞工法院認為基於客機機師體能的衰弱可能會帶來嚴重的後果（重要法益受害），所以機師的特殊體能得視為“重要的及具有決定性的職業上的要求”。但限制年滿60歲的機師不得從事飛航任務，並不符合比例性的/適當的要求。

Age discrimination in employment in EU is part of social rights, but also one of the characteristics of the prohibition of discrimination, its purpose is in the pursuit of a fair and just labor environment. Compared with the issue of freedom of movement of laborer and equal treatment of pay between man and woman, age discrimination as one kind of social right in European Union erupted later. However, since 2000, during the fulfillment of various laws of age discrimination and the ruling by Court of Justice of the European Union(ECJ), age discrimination in employment has been a concern of a majority of people. In EU, most regulations of age discrimination in employment can be found in Equal Treatment Directive and chapter social solidarity in Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. During the process of embodiment of social fundamental rights by ECJ, Article 21 and Article 28 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union were separated cited by ECJ in case Kücükdeveci in 2010 an d in case Hennigs & Mai in 2011. Both cases inhere a considerable representation concerning age discrimination. Facing the aging society and declining birthrate and the financial shortcomings of social insurance funds, the EU has combined age discrimination of eldest workers in employment and the policy of the promotion of employment, in order to take into account the best use of human resources. According to Equal Treatment Directive, some certain characteristics can be legally set up for specific vocation and its implementation, if it is coherent with the necessary condition of important and decisive requirements of career, and its purpose is to pursue a legitimate aim and also in accordance with the requirements of proportionality. Then that cannot be deemed as a discriminatory behavior. But ＂the agreed age limits＂ provisions between labor parties does not fulfill the rules of clarification of law and stability of law. ECJ and the German Federal Labor Court held that airliner pilots based physical weakn ess may lead to serious consequences (important legal interests injured), so that pilots special physical fitness can be deemed as ＂important and decisive requirements of career＂. But the prohibition of a pilot who is over 60 years old, that he may not continue his flight tasks, does not fit the request of the principle of proportionality.