Paul Craig, Professor of English Law at St John’s College, Oxford and Gráinne de Búrca, Professor of Law at New York University School of Law
The aim of this series is to publish important and original research on EU law. The focus is on scholarly monographs, with a particular emphasis on those which are interdisciplinary in nature. Edited collections of essays will also be included where they are appropriate. The series is wide in scope and aims to cover studies of particular areas of substantive and of institutional law, historical works, theoretical studies, and analyses of current debates, as well as questions of perennial interest such as the relationship between national and EU law and the novel forms of governance emerging in and beyond Europe. The fact that many of the works are interdisciplinary will make the series of interest to all those concerned with the governance and operation of the EU.
other titles in this series
Subnational Authorities in EU Law
Michèle Finck
Accessing Asylum in Europe
Extraterritorial Border Controls and Refugee Rights under EU Law
Violeta Moreno-Lax
National Parliaments after the Lisbon Treaty and the Euro Crisis Resilience or Resignation?
Davor Jančić
Environmental Integration in Competition and Free-Movement Laws
Julian Nowag
EU Agencies
Legal and Political Limits to the Transformation of the EU Administration
Merijn Chamon
Coherence in EU Competition law
Wolf Sauter
Foreign Policy Objectives in European Constitutional Law
Joris Larik
Economic Governance in Europe
Comparative Paradoxes and Constitutional Challenges
Federico Fabbrini
Private Regulation and the Internal Market
Sports, Legal Services, and Standard Setting in EU Economic Law
Mislav Mataija
The EU Deep Trade Agenda
Law and Policy
Billy A. Melo Araujo
EU Equality Law
The First Fundamental Rights Policy of the EU
ELISE MUIR
Associate
Professor
of EU Law, and head of the Institute for European Law, KU Leuven
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018949655
ISBN 978–0–19–881466–5
Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Almost two decades after the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights gained binding force, Elise Muir’s book revisits the question whether and to what extent the EU has an autonomous human rights policy. Muir does so through an analysis of EU Equality law, which she argues has become the EU’s first fundamental rights policy.
Contrasting EU equality law and policy with other areas of EU policy such as data protection, which has strong fundamental rights implications, she argues that equality law and policy is different in that it is a human rights policy with its own independent legal basis, its own set of tools and instruments, and is intended to realize specific fundamental rights rather than being part of another EU policy. She notes the application of this area of law to both the public and the private sphere, which she labels the ‘infrastructural’ and ‘transformative’ dimensions.
Muir cautions against the over-constitutionalization of EU equality law, in the sense of tying its development and shape too closely to the EU treaties rather than permitting the policy to be more flexibly developed and adapted. She argues that some of the cases in which the Court has interpreted the constitutional contours of EU equality law, in the shape of Treaty and Charter provisions and constitutional principles, have established powerful supranational interventions into controversial areas of domestic policy touching on important and nationally sensitive values, and that EU legislative rather than constitutional guidance in such fields may be more advisable.
Later chapters of the book examine the legislative process in the making of EU equality law, and the use of other tools to shape and promote it. Chapter V contains an interesting analysis of governance and enforcement within EU equality law, including a comparison between the emerging fundamental rights fields of EU data protection and equality law, noting in particular the difference in the way the independent national enforcement authorities within these two fields are treated. Indeed, a recurrent theme of the book is the importance of stimulating and supporting legal innovation at the domestic level in the field of EU equality law, rather than too much prescriptive intervention ‘from above’.
Overall, the book is an intelligent and welcome addition to the existing literature on EU equality law, updating and providing some fresh perspectives on this important and constantly growing field, and will appeal to all those who are interested in EU human rights, equality and non-discrimination law and policy.
Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca
Acknowledgements
This book is the outcome of a research project financed by the Veni programme of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and hosted by the Faculty of Law of the University of Maastricht between 2013 and 2017. I am most grateful to both organizations for making it possible to write this monograph.
I owe special thanks to a number of individuals who have had a direct impact on the content of the book. Mark Dawson gave me the appetite for a second monograph and patiently read early chapters. Bruno de Witte, Marco Dani, and two anonymous reviewers provided most valuable comments on aspects of the project with which I had particular difficulties. Sacha Garben, Gillian More, and Katrien Meuwissen have very kindly and equally helpfully shared their views on specific sections. I am also indebted to the members of the Maastricht Centre for European Law and to the members of the 2017 Edition of the Czech Mountain Seminar who have spent time and energy reflecting along with me on draft chapters.
This manuscript would never have gone to press without the support of family and friends. To begin with my academic family: Monica Claes, Mark Dawson, Mariolina Eliantonio, Sacha Garben, Inge Govaere, Dominik Hanf, Claire Kilpatrick, Anne Pieter van der Mei, Síofra O’Leary, Cristophe Radé, Séverine Saintier, Hildegard Schneider, Takis Tridimas, Christian Valèze, Ellen Vos, Lisa Waddington, and Bruno de Witte have provided healthy, caring, and stimulating intellectual homes for the early stages of my academic life. I feel privileged to have received their support and words of advice.
This is as well as, of course, the friends of yesterday and tomorrow, Magali, Estelle, Tristan, and Michaël, who are always available for a chat. My parents, with their indefectible trust. My brothers, so warmly different and thereby so complementary to me. My grandparents, Geneviève, Jean-Luc, Hélène, Pierre and MariePierre, and Annie, acting affectionate intellectual compasses.
This book is dedicated to Amélie, Hania, and Pawel. Amélie and Hania were born during and grew up alongside this project; their presence strengthened my determination to write this book. As for Pawel, he is behind each and every page.
Table of Cases
Abrahamsson See Katarina Abrahamsson and Leif Anderson v Elisabet Fogelqvist
Accession by the Community to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [1996] ECLI:EU:C:1996:140 63
Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454 .................... 63
Achbita See Samira Achbita and Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en voor Racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:105 ................... 4, 51, 66
Albert Ruckdeschel & Co and Hansa Lagerhaus Ströh & Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen; Diamalt AG v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe [1977] ECLI:EU:C:1977:160 4, 62
Alimanovic See Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and others
Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën [1995] ECLI:EU:C:1995:126 70
AMS See Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT and others
Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:683 127, 128, 131
Angonese See Roman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA
António Fernando Maio Marques da Rosa v Varzim Sol—Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:844 114
Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA and Superior Fruiticola SA v Frumar Ltd and Redbridge Produce Marketing Ltd [2002] ECLI:EU:C:2002:497 .................................... 139
Asma Bougnaoui and Association de Défense des Droits de l’Homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:204 .............................................. 51
Asociaţia Accept v Consiliul Naţional pentru Combatere a Discriminării [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:275 ..................................................... 154
Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL and others v Conseil des ministres [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:100 2, 32, 35, 87, 96–8, 105, 106, 140
Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT and others [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2 11, 83, 113–16, 118, 130, 141
Athanasios Vatsouras and Josif Koupatantze v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900 [2009] ECLI:EU:C:2009:344 134
Audiolux SA e.a v Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA (GBL) and others and Bertelsmann AG and others (Case C-101/08) [2009] ECLI:EU:C:2009:626 ............................. 112
Auditeur du travail v Yangwei SPRL [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:826 .................... 127, 128
Autorità per le Garanzienelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica—ISTAT and others [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:608 .......................................... 195
Barber See Douglas Harvey Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECLI:EU:C:2002:493 69 BECTU (Case C-173/99) [2001] ECR I-488 141
Belinda Jane Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd [1998] ECLI:EU:C:1998:424 149, 152
Belov See Valeri Hariev Belov v CHEZ Elektro Balgaria AD and others
Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik GmbH v Ruhrlandklinik GmbH [2016]
ECLI:EU:C:2016:883 126, 127
Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Karin Weber von Hartz [1986] ECLI:EU:C:1986:204 89 BNO Walrave and LJN Koch v Association Union cycliste international, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie and Federación Espanola Ciclismo [1974]
Charlotte Rosselle v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI) and Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM) [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:339.............. 172, 175
CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia [2015]
ECLI:EU:C:2015:480 27, 74, 75, 128, 172, 173 Coleman (S) v Attridge Law and Steve Law [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:415 128, 129, 157
Coloroll Pension Trustees Ltd v James Richard Russell, Daniel Mangham, Gerald Robert Parker, Robert Sharp, Joan Fuller, Judith Ann Broughton and Coloroll Group plc [1994]
ECLI:EU:C:1994:348 129
Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones v Administración del Estado [2008]
ECLI:EU:C:2008:143 195
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic [1974] ECLI:EU:C:1974:35 ..... 70 Commission v Federal Republic of Germany [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:125 ........... 192–4, 200 Commission v Hungary ECLI:EU:C:2014:237 .................................. 194, 199
Commission v Republic of Austria [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:406 ....................... 192–4
Concetta Sagulo, Gennaro Brenca and Addelmadjid Bakhouche [1977] ECLI:EU:C:1977:131 .....155
Dai Cugini NV v Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:223 127, 128, 132
Danfoss A/S and Sauer-DanfossApS v Skatteministeriet [1989] ECLI:EU:C:1989:383 149
Dano See Elisabeta Dano and Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig
Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:278 2, 35, 83, 85, 86, 116, 202
David L Parris v Trinity College Dublin and others [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:897 98
David Montoya Medina v Fondo de Garantía Salarial et Universidad de Alicante [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:167 126
Defrenne II See Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena
Del Cerro Alonso See Yolanda Del Cerro Alonso v Osakidetza-Servicio Vasco de Salud
Delège and Lehtonen (Cases C-51/96 &176/96) ..................................... 159
Deutsche Post AG v Elisabeth Sievers and Brunhilde Schrage [2000] ECLI:EU:C:2000:76 .... 10, 77
Deutsche Telekom AG v Lilli Schröder[2000] ECLI:EU:C:2000:72 ................... 8, 10, 77
Dieter Kraus v Land Baden-Württemberg [1993] ECLI:EU:C:1993:125 ................ 70, 158
Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and others and Kärtner Landesregierung and others [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:238 75
Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and others and Kärntner Landesregierung and others [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:238 139
Dominguez See Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique and Préfet de la région Centre
Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH [1997]
Elisabeta Dano and Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2358 ............................................ 100, 101, 103
Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas and others[1991] ECLI:EU:C:1991:254 36, 61
Enderby (Dr Pamela Mary) v Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health [1993] ECLI:EU:C:1993:859 28, 70, 82, 149
Erich Stauder v City of Ulm—Sozialamt [1969] ECLI:EU:C:1969:57 36
European Commission v Guido Strack [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:570 85, 114, 117, 119, 120, 139
Fenoll See Gérard Fenoll v Centre d’aide par le travail ‘La Jouvene’ and Association de parents et d’amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d’Avignon
Feryn See Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en voor Racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV
Flaminio Costa v ENEL [1964] ECLI:EU:C:1964:66 ................................... 36
FMC plc, FMC (Meat) Ltd, DT Duggins Ltd, Marshall (Lamberhurst) Ltd, Montelupo Ltd and North Devon Meat Ltd v Intervention Board of Agricultural Produce and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1996] ECLI:EU:C:1996:40 ...................... 153
Francisco Javier Rosado Santana v Consejería de Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:557 126–8
Fransson See Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson
Frédéric Hay v Crédit Agricole Mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des DeuxSèvres [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:823 62, 173
Fries See Werner Fries v Lufthansa City Line GmbH
Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena [1976] ECLI:EU:C:1976:56 (Defrenne II) ........... 5, 7, 8, 70, 79, 80, 82–4, 90, 106–8, 137, 148
Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena (Defrenne III) (Case 149/77) [1978] ECLI:EU:C:1978:130; [1978] ECR 1365 ................ 10, 62, 95
García-Nieto See Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen v Jovanna García-Nieto and others
Gaskin v United Kingdom (App no 10454/83) 194
Geoffrey Léger contre Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes et Etablissement français du sang [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:288 67, 85
Georg Badeck and others, interveners: Hessische Ministerpräsident and Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hesse [2000] ECLI:EU:C:2000:163 93
Gérard Fenoll v Centre d’aide par le travail ‘La Jouvene’ and Association de parents et d’amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d’Avignon [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:200 112, 114, 115, 117, 118, 130
Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich [2003] ECLI:EU:C:2003:513 .................... 155–6
Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost [1974] ECLI:EU:C:1974:13 .............. 70, 82
Glatzel See Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern Graf (Case C-190/98) [2000] ECR I–493 ........................................... 159
Grant See Lisa Jacqueline Grant v South-West Trains Ltd Grupo Norte Facility, SA v Angel Manuel Moreira Gómez [2017] OJ C30/21–22 (pending) 111, 120
H Lommers v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij [2002] ECLI:EU:C:2002:183 91
Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Danfoss Forbund I Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Danfoss [1989] ECLI:EU:C:1989:383 28
Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund I Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Danfoss [1989] ECLI:EU:C:1989:38 ............................ 70
Hay See Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres
Helmut Marschall v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1997] ECLI:EU:C:1997:533 ................ 92
HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab and HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:222 65
HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab (C-335/11) and HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:222 174
Impact v Minister for Agriculture and Food and others [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:223 ........................................... 123–6, 130, 131
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECLI:EU:C:1970:114 .................................... 36, 61
Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Tiziana Bruno and Massimo Pettini and Daniela Lotti and Clara Matteucci [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:329 ......... 125, 126, 128, 132
J Nold, Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v Commission of the European Communities [1974] ECLI:EU:C:1974:51 61–3
Jean Razanatsimba [1977] ECLI:EU:C:1977:193 188
Jean Reyners v Belgian State [1974] ECLI:EU:C:1974:68 70
JN v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:84 62
Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and others [2015]
ECLI:EU:C:2015:597 101, 103, 105, 106
Johannes Henricus Maria van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid [1974] ECLI:EU:C:1974:131 ................................... 70
John O’Flynn v Adjudication Officer [1996] ECLI:EU:C:1996:206 ..................... 70, 82
Joseph Griesmar v Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de l’Industrie and Ministre de la Fonction publique, de la Réforme de L’Etat et de la Décentralisation [2001]
Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) and Comune di Genova ECLI:EU:C:2017:485 ...................................... 136
KHS (Case C-214/10) [2011] ECR I-11757 141
Kücükdeveci See Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG
Land Oberösterreich v Čez [2009] ECLI:EU:C:2009:660 4
Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska yggnadsarbetareförbund etsavdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007]
ECLI:EU:C:2007:809 8, 158
Leander v Sweden (App no 9248/81) (1987) 9 EHRR 433 .............................. 194
Léger See Geoffrey Léger contre Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes et Etablissement français du sang
Lisa Jacqueline Grant v South-West Trains Ltd [1998] ECLI:EU:C:1998:63 ....... 58, 98, 104, 203
Macarthys Ltd v Wendy Smith[1980] ECLI:EU:C:1980:103 ............................ 129
Manfred Säger v Dennemeyer & Co Ltd [1991] ECLI:EU:C:1991:331 ..................... 70
Mangold See Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm
María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECLI:EU:C:1998:217 99, 100
Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique and Préfet de la région Centre [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:559 13, 86, 112–15, 117, 118, 130, 141
Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique and Préfet de la région Centre [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:559 45
Marschall See Helmut Marschall v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
Martinez Silva See Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) and Comune di Genova
Maximilian Schrems v Data Protection Commisioner [2015]
Mohamed Daouidi v Bootes Plus SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial, Ministerio Fiscal [2016]
ECLI:EU:C:2016:917 133
Nazli (Case C-340/97) [2000] ECR I-957 159
Nicole Wippel v Peek & Cloppenburg GmbH & Co KG [2004]
ECLI:EU:C:2004:607 121, 132
NW Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Orderneming van Gend en Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECLI:EU:C:1963:1 ................................ 7
Odièvre v France (App no 42326/98) [2003] ECHR 86 ................................ 194
Othmar Michaeler, Subito GmbH and Ruth Volgger v Amt für sozialen Arbeitsschutz and Autonome Provinz Bozen [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:248 ....................... 122, 132
P and S v Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda and College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:369 136
P. v S. and Cornwall County Council (Case C-13/94) [1996] ECR I-2143 10
Pedro Manuel Roca-Alvarez v Sesa Start Espana ETT SA [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:56 94
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Peter Brey [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:565 101, 103
Petya Milkova v Izpalnitelen direktor na Agentsiata za privatizatsia i sledprivatizatsionen control [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:198 65, 67, 85
R (on the application of Dany Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Case C-209/03) [2005] ECLI:EU:C:2005:169 .................. 101
Razzouk and Beydoun v Commission (Joined Cases 75/82 & 117/82 [1984] ECR 1509 ......... 10
Reinhard Gebhard v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano [1995]
Rewe-Zentralfnanze G and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECLI:EU:C:1976:188 149
Rinke See Katharina Rinke v Ärztekammer Hamburg
Roca-Alvarez See Pedro Manuel Roca-Alvarez v Sesa Start Espana ETT SA
Roman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (Case C-281/90) [2000]
ECLI:EU:C:2000:296 8, 80, 159, 161
Rosa María Gavieiro Gavieiro and Ana María Iglesias Torres v Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria de la Xunta de Galicia [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:819 ...... 127, 131
Rosanna Valenzaand others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato [2012]
Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:21 .............. 2, 11, 13, 32, 35, 75, 77, 83–6, 106, 111–13, 115–19, 131–3, 136, 138, 139, 202
Serge Briheche v Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre de l’Education nationale and Ministre de la Justice [2004] ECLI:EU:C:2004:574 94
Servet Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia Sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES) and others [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:233 134–6, 173
Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte and others v BPN—Banco Português de Negócios SA [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:149 66
Sindicato Nacional dos Profssionais de Seguros e Afnscontre Fidelidade Mundial— Companhia de Seguros SA [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2036 ........................... 66
Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:107 ...................... 50, 51
Strack See European Commission v Guido Strack
Synetairismos Farmakopoion Aitolias & Akarnanias (Syfait) and others v GlaxoSmithKline plc and GlaxoSmithKline AEVE [2005] ECLI:EU:C:2005:333 ......................... 189
Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:179 62
Teresa Emmott v Minister for Social Welfare and Attorney General [1991] ECLI:EU:C:1991:333 157
Test-Achats See Association Belge des Consommateurs TestAchats ASBL and others v Conseil des ministres
Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy [2008]
ECLI:EU:C:2008:727 112, 138
Union nationale des entraîneurs et cadres techniques professionnels du football (Unectef) v Georges Heylens and others [1987] ECLI:EU:C:1987 ............................. 155
Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECLI:EU:C:1995:463 .............. 8, 70, 80
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union [1996] ECLI:EU:C:1996:431 48
Valeri Hariev Belov v CHEZ Elektro Balgaria AD and others [2013]
ECLI:EU:C:2013:48 172, 175, 188–90
Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV [2017]
ECLI:EU:C:2017:851 11
Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen v Jovanna García-Nieto and others [2016]
ECLI:EU:C:2016:114 101, 103, 105
Werner Fries v Lufthansa City Line GmbH [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:513 85
L53/1 (establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights)
Art 2
179
Art 4(1) 179
Regulation 492/2011/EU [2011] OJ
L141/1 (Freedom of Movement Regulation), Art 7 72, 82, 157
Regulation 1381/2013/EU [2013] OJ L354/62 (Rights, Equality and Citizenship)
Art 3
Art 4
Regulation 2016/679/EU [2016] OJ L119/1 (General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR))
165
165
L257/2 (Freedom of Movement for Workers) 72, 99, 146
Regulation 1408/71/EEC [1971] OJ
L149/2 (Social Security Schemes) 99
Regulation 1035/97/EC [1997] OJ
L151/1 (Racism and Xenophobia) 179
. 17, 138, 140, 177, 185
Art 1(1) 137
Art 1(2) 137
Art 52 198
Art 58 191
Art 99 138
Art 99(2) 185
Table of International Treaties and Conventions
Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, Art 11
84
European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom (ECHR) 44, 50, 146 Protocol 12 59 Art 14 59
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) 59, 63–8
Art 1(1)
64
List of Abbreviations
GENERAL
AMS Association de Médiation Sociale
CFEU Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/ 391 (the Charter)
DPA Data Protection Authority
ECHR European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights)
ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
EDPS European Data Protection Supervisor
EQUINET European Network of Equality Bodies
FRA Fundamental Rights Agency
FTW Directive Fixed-Term Work Directive 1999 (Council Directive (EC) 1999/70 of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP [1999] OJ L175/43)
GDPR General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC [2016] OJ L119/1)
IC Directive Information and Consultation Directive (Directive (EC) 2002/14 of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community [2002] OJ L80/29)
NGO non-governmental organization
NWO Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek)
PTW Directive Part-Time Work Directive 1997 (Council Directive (EC) 97/81 of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC [1998] OJ L14/9)
TAW Directive Temporary Agency Work Directive (Directive (EC) 2008/104 of 19 November 2008 on Temporary Agency Work [2008] OJ L327/9)
TEC Treaty establishing the European Community
TEEC European Economic Community Treaty
TEU Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2012] OJ C326/ 01
TFEU Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/47 (the Treaty)
UNCRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
MJ Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
MLR Modern Law Review
OJLS Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
REALaw Review of European Administrative Law
Yale LJ Yale Law Journal
YEL Yearbook of European Law
1
Introduction
An intense debate was sparked in the late 1990s: should the EU become a ‘Human Rights Organization’? The pressing need to reflect on the matter arose as the EU became increasingly involved with justice and home affairs, thereby intervening through legally binding tools in the fields of migration, justice, and police cooperation, with direct implications on fundamental rights. The call for greater intervention of the EU in matters concerned with fundamental or human rights1 had two main facets: How could fundamental rights concerns be efficiently incorporated in the daily functioning of the EU? Should human rights constitute new core policies of the EU? The former focuses on an improved monitoring of fundamental rights’ compliance across existing EU policies. The latter is concerned with broadening the mandate of the EU to cover human rights, either in the form of a new distinct policy or in realizing fundamental rights through EU intervention across existing policies. Twenty years, several treaty reforms, and one Charter of Fundamental Rights later, in the midst of a migration, security, and economic crisis, the relevance of the debate has been anything but tempered. While these questions taken together are the subject of a book recently published by Dawson,2 the present monograph revisits specific implications of the second question in the EU as we know it today. Despite increasing attention being paid to fundamental rights in the daily functioning of the EU, it is clear that no treaty revisions have given a broad mandate for the EU to address fundamental rights protection across the Member States. That role remains entrusted to the Member States themselves and to the Council of Europe, with the notable exception of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). That provision sets out a procedure intended to empower the EU to monitor and possibly react to a serious breach by a Member State of the values on which the EU is founded, including respect for human rights. This is already the subject of much academic attention.3
1 Please note that the notions of ‘fundamental rights’ and ‘human rights’ are used interchangeably in this book.
2 Mark Dawson, The Governance of EU Fundamental Rights (CUP 2017).
3 Examples include: Dimitry Kochenov and Laurent Pech, ‘Better Late than Never? On the European Commission’s Rule of Law Framework and its First Activation’ (2016) 54 JCMS 1062; Laurent Pech and Kim Lane Scheppele, ‘Poland and the European Commission, Part III: Requiem for the Rule of Law’ (2017) Verf Blog.
The focus of this book, which has been subject to far less analysis, is the progressive development of EU policies intended to realize specific fundamental rights. Despite the clear rejection of a general mandate for the EU in this field, over the past two decades EU competences have emerged explicitly—and at times almost exclusively—to give shape to a given fundamental right. EU intervention in such fields develops a legal and policy regime intended to promote the relevant fundamental right at domestic level. It is argued throughout this book that EU equality law provides a particularly useful example of such a policy: it has developed since the Amsterdam Treaty in reference to a legal basis that stands independently of the internal market rationale common to most EU policies. Over the years it has gained a particularly clear and forceful human rights connotation. And it has been encapsulated in a remarkably ambitious as well as homogeneous set of legislative instruments combining both substantive guidance on the right itself, and a toolbox to improve the effectiveness and governance of the said right in domestic spheres.
As such specific fundamental rights competences and relevant areas of law have emerged despite the reluctance of the Member States to grant the EU a core human rights policy, the constitutional setting in which they are embedded today warrants investigation. What characterizes equality law today, as our key example, is twofold. First, there is a strong trend towards the constitutionalization of equality law (ie the narrative on equality law is very often couched in constitutional terms). This is common in the dynamics of EU law and has often been criticized in the context of internal market law-making. As a consequence, there is confusion on the relationship between the right to equal treatment as enshrined in legislation and the constitutional version of the right protected by EU primary law. This confusion is best illustrated by rulings such as Mangold, 4 Kücükdeveci, 5 Dansk Industri, 6 or TestAchats, 7 where the boundaries between two layers of EU norms are blurred. Second, the equality law directives adopted from the year 2000 onwards have brought in a very diverse set of rules intended to support a change in mentality from within domestic legal and policy arenas. The infrastructure of EU law is therefore being used to perform a transformative function of a particularly ambitious nature. These two remarks on EU equality law as it stands today have one important point in common: they both build on very well-known features of EU law. These are a high level of constitutionalization and a supranational legal order highly integrated in that of the Member States. In other words, a fundamental rights policy developed through the medium of EU law, even if narrowly focused on a single fundamental right as EU equality law is, carries the full strength of EU law. This may be obvious. It is, however, worth investigating. Does the EU, in developing legislation that shapes the content of a right deemed to be fundamental and that diversifies the tools for anchoring that right in our societies, not have unique strengths as well as weaknesses?
4 Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm [2005] ECLI:EU:C:2005:709.
5 Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:21.
6 Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:278.
7 Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL and others v Conseil des ministres [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:100.
It is submitted that the use of EU law to define and promote a given fundamental right, such as that to equal treatment, in the context of a competence specifically devoted to that purpose, creates a significant risk of over-constitutionalization. This risk, which amounts to limiting political debate on the definition of fundamental rights, is best understood after reviewing the main theoretical components of the debate on law-making in the field of human rights (Chapter 2). This will allow for a demonstration of the implications of this risk actually materializing in the context of EU equality law (Chapter 3) as well as the development of an argumentation to prevent its spreading to other prongs of EU law (Chapter 4). The initial chapters of the book thus call for the preservation of elements of flexibility inherent in legislative law-making when the EU regulates the fundamental right to equal treatment. Building on this approach, Chapter 5 suggests an understanding be drawn of the wide range of tools created under the umbrella of EU law to support a human rights culture in domestic arenas as the main added value of EU legislative intervention in the field. These tools indeed plant the seeds from which societal change is most likely to emerge as they allow for interactive as well as reflexive processes. Before engaging with the detail of the argumentation supporting these theses, the focus on EU equality law is further explained.
A. Equal Treatment as a Cornerstone of European Integration
The principle of equality or non-discrimination8 constitutes one of the cornerstones of the process of European integration. The pursuit of equality among the people and states is a primary objective.9 This has long been perceived as a precondition to progressing towards ‘an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’10 to the extent that the Union is actually ‘founded’ on the value of equality.11 References to equality are therefore very diverse.12 Yet they all find a common origin in a ‘metaprinciple of equality’ defined by reference to the Aristotelian formula adjusted in the context of EU law: compliance with the principle of non-discrimination requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently, and that different
8 These notions are used interchangeably.
9 eg Articles 3(3), 4(2) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2012] OJ C326/ 01 (hereafter TEU), Article 8 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/47 (hereafter TFEU).
10 Article 1 TEU. 11 Article 2 TEU.
12 The different functions of the principle of equal treatment as a fundamental right are explored for instance by Sophia Koukoulis-Spiliotpoulos, ‘The Amended Equal Treatment Directive (2002/ 73): An Expression of Constitutional Principles/Fundamental Rights’ (2005) 12 MJ 327, 331–32; Takis Tridimas, General Principles of EU Law (2nd edn, OUP 2006) 60. For a more general discussion of the role of fundamental rights in such a context, see the exchange of views in Jason Coppel and Aidan O’Neill, ‘The European Court of Justice: Taking Rights Seriously?’ (1992) 29 CML Rev 669, 669; and Joseph HH Weiler and Nicolas JS Lockhart, ‘ “Taking Rights Seriously” Seriously: The European Court and its Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence—Part I’ (1995) 32 CML Rev 51, as well as ‘ “Taking Rights Seriously” Seriously: The European Court and its Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence—Part II’ (1995) 32 CML Rev 579. For earlier writing on the issue, see also Manfred Zuleeg, ‘Fundamental Rights and the Law of the European Communities’ (1971) 8 CML Rev 446, 450; and Judge Pescatore, ‘The Protection of Human Rights in the European Communities’ (1972) 1 CML Rev 73.
situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified.13 This principle has been granted constitutional status and is frequently referred to as a general principle of EU law.14
As such, the general principle of equality and its expressions in primary and secondary law serve as benchmarks15 to assess the soundness of decision-making by EU actors16 as well as by the Member States acting within the scope of EU law.17 It demands that decision-makers be capable of explaining the legitimacy, appropriateness, and necessity of specific distinguishing criteria and the negative impact of a decision on certain categories of actors or products. It is thus a tool for good governance.18 Among the diverse references to non-discrimination are a number of expressions of the principle that substantiate the meta-principle in the context of a specific policy. What many of these references have in common is that they are primarily driven by the goal of market-making for goods, services, and legal and natural persons, as well as capital.19 In this context, the principle of equality is framed in terms of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and is designed to erase boundaries progressively for economic entities among the Member States.
Other references to equality are the expression of a more ambitious societal goal: they constitute an example of what Walker has named ‘second-generation rights’ in the context of EU law.20 These rights were developed after the original framework defined the four freedoms and the necessary property rights and economic freedoms.21 These latter provisions, which may be found in primary as well as secondary law, belong to policies driven by the intent to further equality among the people of Europe.22 Here non-discrimination is more than a principle regulating the mechanics of institutional law or a tool to regulate the relationship among
13 Albert Ruckdeschel & Co and Hansa Lagerhaus Ströh & Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen; Diamalt AG v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe [1977] ECLI:EU:C:1977:160, para 7. The first limb of this formula is the most classic expression of the principle but the second limb is also of practical relevance, eg Zoi Chatzi v Ypourgos Oikonomikon [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:534, paras 68–75.
14 Albert Ruckdeschel & Co and Hansa Lagerhaus Ströh & Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen; Diamalt AG v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe [1977] ECLI:EU:C:1977:160, para 7. See also Land Oberösterreich v Čez [2009] ECLI:EU:C:2009:660, para 91.
15 On the functions of the principle, eg Gillian More, ‘The Principle of Equal Treatment: From Market Unifier to Fundamental Right?’ in Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca (eds), The Evolution of EU Law (OUP 2011) 517; Gráinne de Búrca, ‘The Role of Equality in European Community Law’ in Alan Dashwood and Siofra O’Leary (eds), The Principle of Equal Treatment in EC Law (Sweet & Maxwell 1997) 13.
16 Including the legislator, eg Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL and others v Conseil des ministers [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:100.
17 By analogy Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:105, paras 16–31.
18 Illustrating the implementation of fundamental rights for that purpose, see: Commission (EU), ‘2014 Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’ COM (2015) 191 final, 8 May 2015; and Council (EU), ‘Guidelines on Methodological Steps to be Taken to Check Fundamental Rights Compatibility at the Council Preparatory Bodies’ 5377/15, 20 January 2015.
19 See also competition law and agricultural policy.
20 Neil Walker, ‘Human Rights in a Post-National Order: Reconciling Political and Constitutional Pluralism’ in Tom Campbell, Keith D Ewing, and Adam Tomkins (eds), Sceptical Essays on Human Rights (OUP 2001) 137.
21 ibid 136.
22 Fritz W Scharpf, ‘Perpetual Momentum: Directed and Unconstrained?’ (2012) 19 JEPP 127, 132–33.
