Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lessons from the Recent Case Law of the EU Court of Justice on the Principle of Non-discrimination

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Principle of Equality in EU Law

Abstract

The case law the EU Court of Justice has issued on non-discrimination is particularly developed in the area of discrimination based on nationality or sex, and lately also in matters concerning sexual orientation, disability, and ethnic origin. This case law is rich in lessons on fundamental issues, such as the prohibition for employers to publicly announce discriminatory hiring policies, the definition of disability, the exclusion barring same-sex partners from access to employment-related benefits and services, and the scheme for burden of proof. This chapter suggests that while the Court’s approach is not entirely clear, it has nonetheless made allowance for social progress in protecting victims of discrimination. The Court has thus contributed to realizing the values on which the European Union is founded.

This chapter takes into account developments of practice and legislation until 31 July 2016.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A first European directive was adopted in 1975. It was followed by several directives that were merged into Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunity and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204/23).

  2. 2.

    Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180/22).

  3. 3.

    Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303/16).

  4. 4.

    Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002 L 269/15).

  5. 5.

    This principle was established by the judgment in Mangold (Case C-144/04, EU:C:2005:709) and, according to the Court, it is given specific expression by Directive 2000/78/EC. This judgment has been widely debated, but has nonetheless been upheld by the judgment in Kücükdeveci (Case C-555/07, EU:C:2010:21), which reaffirms that general principle of law, this time also on the basis of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which in particular prohibits age discrimination.

  6. 6.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-297/10 and C-298/10 Hennigs and Mai EU:C:2011:560, para 78. For a general survey on the anti-discrimination case law see Ellis and Watson (2012) and European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, European Court of Human Rights – Council of Europe (2011).

  7. 7.

    Brillat (2015); as for the case law, see ECJ, Case C-550/07 P Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission EU:C:2010:512, paras 54 and 55. For a quantitative analysis of the relevant case law see Chap. 6 by Zaccaroni, in this volume.

  8. 8.

    The Court has not yet had an opportunity to take a stance on discrimination based on religion or belief: see infra Sect. 5.6.

  9. 9.

    ECJ, Case C-363/12 Z. EU:C:2014:159, para 73.

  10. 10.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 HK Danmark EU:C:2013:222, paras 37-39; ECJ, Case C-363/12 Z., supra n. 9, para 76; and ECJ, Case C-356/12 Glatzel EU:C:2014:350, para 45.

  11. 11.

    ECJ, Case C-354/13 FOA EU:C:2014:2463; ECJ, Case C-356/12 Glatzel, supra n. 10.

  12. 12.

    ECJ, Case C-13/05 Chacon Navas EU:C:2006:456. Having been dismissed after an eight-month sick leave, Ms Navas brought an action before the Spanish court. The ECJ specified that the notion of disability must be interpreted consistently with Directive 2000/78/EC as ‘a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments and which hinders the participation of the person concerned in professional life’ (ibid., para 43).

  13. 13.

    In the FOA judgment (Case C-354/13, supra n. 11), the Court specified that the origin of a disability has no relevance. The notion of disability must be objective and does not depend on whether the person in question had any role in causing the disability to emerge.

  14. 14.

    ECJ, Case C-354/13 FOA, supra n. 11.

  15. 15.

    ECJ, Case C-363/12 Z., supra n. 9, para 77 and the case law cited here.

  16. 16.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 HK Danmark, supra n. 10.

  17. 17.

    ECJ, Case C-13/05 Chacon Navas, supra n. 12. The Court specified that Directive 2000/78/EC makes no suggestion that the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of disability protects workers in case of sickness; by using the concept of ‘disability’, the legislature deliberately chose a term which differs from ‘sickness’. The two concepts cannot therefore be treated as equivalent.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., para 57.

  19. 19.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 HK Danmark, supra n. 10, para 41.

  20. 20.

    ECJ, Case C-354/13 FOA, supra n. 11.

  21. 21.

    ECJ, Case C-363/12 Z., supra n. 9.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., para 81.

  23. 23.

    Ibid.

  24. 24.

    Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC, providing for a general framework on equal treatment in respect of work and employment, stipulates that ‘in order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities, reasonable accommodation shall be provided. This means that employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within the framework of the disability policy of the Member State concerned.’

  25. 25.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 HK Danmark, supra n. 10, para 45; ECJ, Case C-312/11 Commission v Italy EU:C:2013:446, para 60.

  26. 26.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 HK Danmark, supra n. 10.

  27. 27.

    Article 26 of the Charter: ‘The Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.’

  28. 28.

    ECJ, Case C-356/12 Glatzel, supra n. 10, para 78.

  29. 29.

    ECJ, Case C-303/06 Coleman EU:C:2008:415.

  30. 30.

    Cf. Opinion of Advocate-General Maduro, delivered on 31 January 2008, in Case C-303/06 Coleman EU:C:2008:61, para 23. It may be noted that he has been the first to introduce the notion of ‘discrimination by association ’ in EU law.

  31. 31.

    ECJ, Case C-83/14 CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria EU:C:2015:480.

  32. 32.

    See Popov (2016).

  33. 33.

    Brillat (2015), p. 145.

  34. 34.

    ECJ, Case C-83/14 CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria, supra n. 31. In this important judgment, the Court did not take a stance on the nature of the discrimination at issue but simply stated that it is up to the national courts to decide whether the discrimination was direct or indirect. The Court specified that, for the purpose of Directive 2000/43, indirect discrimination must be defined as an apparently neutral criterion, provision, or practice that puts persons of a given racial or ethnic origin at a particular disadvantage by comparison with other persons. The Court specified that the concept of ‘an ‘apparently neutral’ provision, criterion or practice’ means ‘a provision, criterion or practice which is worded or applied, ostensibly, in a neutral manner, that is to say, having regard to factors different from and not equivalent to the protected characteristic’ (ibid., para 109). It also held that the concept of ‘particular disadvantage’ does not refer to ‘serious, obvious or particularly significant cases of inequality, but denotes that it is particularly persons of a given racial or ethnic origin who are at a disadvantage because of the provision, criterion or practice at issue’ (ibid., para 109).

  35. 35.

    ECJ, Case C-267/12 Hay EU:C:2013:823, para 33; see also ECJ, Case C-267/06 Maruko EU:C:2008:179, paras 67-69; ECJ, Case C-147/08 Römer EU:C:2011:286, para 42.

  36. 36.

    ECJ, Case C-267/06 Maruko, supra n. 35 ECJ, Case -147/08 Römer, supra n. 35.

  37. 37.

    ECJ, Case C-267/12 Hay, supra n. 35.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., para 44.

  39. 39.

    ECJ, Case C-356/12 Glatzel, supra n. 10; ECJ, Case C-528/13 Léger EU:C:2014:2112.

  40. 40.

    ECJ, Case C-528/13 Léger, supra n. 39, para 40.

  41. 41.

    ECJ, Case C-356/12 Glatzel, supra n. 10, para 43. In applying these principles to the case at hand, the Court held that ‘a difference in treatment applied to a person according to whether or not he has the visual acuity necessary to drive power-driven vehicles is not, in principle, contrary to the prohibition on discrimination based on disability within the meaning of Article 21(1) of the Charter, in so far as such a requirement actually fulfils an objective of public interest, is necessary and is not a disproportionate burden.’ Cf. ECJ, Case C-127/07 Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine and Others EU:C:2008:728, para 47; ECJ, Case C-101/12 Schaible EU:C:2013:661, para 77.

  42. 42.

    ECJ, Case C-528/13 Léger, supra n. 39.

  43. 43.

    In the Court’s view, for example, the operational capacity and proper functioning of the local police service constitutes a legitimate objective within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC (see, to that effect, ECJ, Case C-416/13 Vital Perez EU:C:2014:2371, para 44; ECJ, Case C-229/08 Wolf EU:C:2010:3, para 39).

  44. 44.

    ECJ, Case C-83/14 CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria, supra n. 31, para 128.

  45. 45.

    ECJ, Case C-356/12 Glatzel, supra n. 10.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    ECJ, Case C-83/14 CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria, supra n. 31, para 112: ‘where there is a difference in treatment on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, the concept of objective justification must be interpreted strictly.’

  48. 48.

    See Brillat (2015), p. 201ff. See also Article 10(1), Directive 2000/78 (supra n. 3); Article 8(1), Directive 2000/43 (supra n. 2); and Article 19(1), Directive 2006/54 (supra n. 1).

  49. 49.

    ECJ, Case C-104/10 Kelly EU:C:2011:506.

  50. 50.

    ECJ, Case C-415/10 Meister EU:C:2012:217, para 42.

  51. 51.

    ECJ, Case C-83/14 CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria, supra n. 31, para 80.

  52. 52.

    ECJ, Case C-81/12 Asociaţia ACCEPT EU:C:2013:275.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., para 59.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., para 58: ‘In the overall assessment carried out by the national body or court hearing the matter, a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation may be refuted with a body of consistent evidence. As Accept has, in essence, submitted, such a body of evidence might include, for example, a reaction by the defendant concerned clearly distancing itself from public statements on which the appearance of discrimination is based, and the existence of express provisions concerning its recruitment policy aimed at ensuring compliance with the principle of equal treatment within the meaning of Directive 2000/78.’

  55. 55.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-199/12 to C-201/12 X, Y and Z EU:C:2013:720.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., para 45.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-148/13 to C-150/13 A, B and C EU:C:2014:2406.

  59. 59.

    ECJ, Case C-188/15 Bougnaoui and ADDH, AG Sharpston’s Opinion delivered on 13 July 2016; ECJ, Case C-157/15 Achbita, AG Kokott’s Opinion delivered on 31 May 2016.

References

  • Brillat M (2015) Le principe de non discrimination à l’épreuve des droits européens. Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis E, Watson P (2012) EU anti-discrimination law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, European Court of Human Rights – Council of Europe (2011) Handbook on European non-discrimination law, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/1510-FRA-CASE-LAW-HANDBOOK_EN.pdf. Accessed 31 Dec 2016

  • Popov A (2016) Mise au point et nouveaux développements européens sur la discrimination directe et la discrimination par association. La Revue des droits de l’homme, March 2016, https://revdh.revues.org/1989. Accessed 31 Dec 2016

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Faculty, University of Strasbourg, Place d’Athènes, 67000, Strasbourg, France

    Florence Benoît-Rohmer

Authors
  1. Florence Benoît-Rohmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florence Benoît-Rohmer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Lucia Serena Rossi

  2. Department of Legal Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Federico Casolari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Benoît-Rohmer, F. (2017). Lessons from the Recent Case Law of the EU Court of Justice on the Principle of Non-discrimination. In: Rossi, L., Casolari, F. (eds) The Principle of Equality in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66137-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66137-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66136-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66137-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation