These principles can be used to found arguments, as French and Spanish lawyers have done (see section 2 of this chapter) that Member States’ criminal courts cannot adopt decisions prior to the transposition deadline which are liable seriously to compromise the achievement of a directive’s objectives after the deadline. This might include the adoption of actions pursuant to a restrictive understanding of national law (e.g. one excluding lawyers from intervening in questioning) which would lead to results (i.e. people being convicted and/ or remaining in prison on the basis of these interrogations) which would be contrary to the Access to a Lawyer Directive after its deadline. c. Mangold Another important case is Mangold,26 which concerned Directive 2000/78/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment in employment, including limitations on discrimination on grounds of age in Article 6. Mr Mangold had been employed on a fixed-term contract as he was over 52, as permitted by a law – adopted after the entry into force of the directive and due to expire shortly after the transposition deadline – designed to encourage employment of older persons who were presumed unable to obtain employment on other terms. This law, however, used blunt methods and was not consistent with the principle of proportionality, being based solely on an age criterion. Mr Mangold argued that its application to him was contrary to Article 6 of Directive 2000/78, despite the latter not having reached its transposition deadline. The CJEU gave a ruling which is considered controversial. It referred to the Wallonie case-law, holding that Member State could not adopt specific measures which would compromise the objective of Directive 2000/78, noting that Directive 2000/78 required legislative progress to be made along the way to its ultimate transposition deadline (paragraphs 66-73). It then said: ‘In the second place and above all, Directive 2000/78 does not itself lay down the principle of equal treatment in the field of employment and occupation. Indeed, in accordance with Article 1 thereof, the sole purpose of the directive is ‘to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of (…) age (…)’, the source of the actual principle underlying the prohibition of those forms of discrimination being found, as is clear from the third and fourth recitals in the preamble to the directive, in various international instruments and in the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age must thus be regarded as a general principle of Community law (…) Consequently, observance of the general principle of equal treatment, in particular in respect of age, cannot as such be conditional upon the expiry of the period allowed the Member States for the transposition of a directive intended to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of age, in particular so far as the organisation of appropriate legal remedies, the burden of proof, protection against victimisation, social dialogue, affirmative action and other specific measures to implement such a directive are concerned (…) In those circumstances it is the responsibility of the national court, hearing a dispute involving the principle of non-discrimination in 26 Case C-144/04 Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm ECLI:EU:C:2005:709. 15