Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Genuine and Determining Occupational Requirement as an Exception to the Prohibition of Discrimination in EU Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The European Union as Protector and Promoter of Equality

Part of the book series: European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World ((EUNGW,volume 1))

  • 803 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents the EU legal regulations and the case law of the Court of Justice concerning genuine occupational requirements. According to the Anti-Discrimination Directives, this exception can be invoked in relation to all the grounds protected under EU law. However, the Court of Justice jurisprudence has focused mainly on two of them, namely sex and age. This can change in future as in Bougnaoui (Case C-188/15, Asma Bougnaoui and Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA (ECJ 14 March 2017)) it also referred to this exception in the framework of discrimination on the grounds of religion. All of the cases show that the concept of ‘a genuine and determining occupational requirement’ is interpreted in a strict manner. Moreover, the proportionality of measures applied seems to play a decisive role in the assessment of the Court if the exception has rightly been invoked in the particular circumstances of a case. Unfortunately, the degree of its scrutiny varies, so it is a case-by-case analysis based on individual situations.

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 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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.

    Muir (2015), p. 935.

  2. 2.

    Maliszewska-Nienartowicz (2014), pp. 43–44.

  3. 3.

    Council Directive 76/207/EC 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 L 39/40-42 (1976).

  4. 4.

    Pitt (2009), p. 3.

  5. 5.

    Case 165/82, Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (ECJ 8 November 1983).

  6. 6.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 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, COM (2000) 334 final of 11 July 2000, OJ C 337 E/204 (2000).

  7. 7.

    Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ L 180/22-26 (2000); Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303/16-22, (2000).

  8. 8.

    Council Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, OJ L 204/23-36 (2006).

  9. 9.

    See Art. 4 (1) of Directive 2000/43, Art. 4 (1) of Directive 2000/78 and Art. 14 (2) of Directive 2006/54.

  10. 10.

    Muir (2015), p. 936.

  11. 11.

    Pitt (2009), p. 2.

  12. 12.

    Case 222/84, Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (ECJ 15 May 1986).

  13. 13.

    Case C-447/09, Reinhard Prigge and Others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (ECJ 13 September 2011).

  14. 14.

    Case C-416/13, Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo (ECJ 13 November 2014).

  15. 15.

    Council Directive 2000/78/EC—explanation added.

  16. 16.

    Case C-188/15, Asma Bougnaoui and Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA (ECJ 14 March 2017), para. 92.

  17. 17.

    Case 248/83, Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (ECJ 21 May 1985).

  18. 18.

    Case 318/86, Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (ECJ 30 June 1988).

  19. 19.

    Pitt (2009), p. 3.

  20. 20.

    Case 248/83, Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (ECJ 21 May 1985).

  21. 21.

    Burri (2006), p. 2.

  22. 22.

    Art. 3 (4).

  23. 23.

    Burri (2006), p. 3.

  24. 24.

    Łopatowska (2009), p. 82.

  25. 25.

    Case 222/84, Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (ECJ 15 May 1986).

  26. 26.

    Case C-273/97, Angela Maria Sirdar v The Army Board and Secretary of State for Defence (ECJ 26 October 1999).

  27. 27.

    Pitt (2009), p. 5.

  28. 28.

    Case C-285/98, Tanja Kreil v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ECJ 11 January 2000).

  29. 29.

    Canor (2002), p. 136.

  30. 30.

    Case 318/86, Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (ECJ 30 June 1988).

  31. 31.

    Case 222/84, Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (ECJ 15 May 1986).

  32. 32.

    Case C-273/97, Angela Maria Sirdar v The Army Board and Secretary of State for Defence (ECJ 26 October 1999).

  33. 33.

    Case C-229/08, Colin Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (ECJ 12 January 2010).

  34. 34.

    Case C-595/12, Loredana Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento dell’Amministrazione penitenziaria (ECJ 6 March 2014).

  35. 35.

    Case C-188/15, Asma Bougnaoui and Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA (ECJ 14 March 2017).

  36. 36.

    Case C-229/08, Colin Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (ECJ 12 January 2010), para. 41.

  37. 37.

    Sargeant (2013), p. 415.

  38. 38.

    Sargeant (2013), p. 415.

  39. 39.

    See Barnard (2012), p. 370.

  40. 40.

    See for example Case C-447/09, Reinhard Prigge and Others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (ECJ 13 September 2011), para. 67; Case C-416/13, Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo (ECJ 13 November 2014), para. 36; or Case C-258/15, Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias (ECJ 15 November 2016), para. 34.

  41. 41.

    Case C-595/12, Loredana Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento dell’Amministrazione penitenziaria (ECJ 6 March 2014).

  42. 42.

    Case C-595/12, Loredana Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento dell’Amministrazione penitenziaria (ECJ 6 March 2014), para. 42, emphasis added.

  43. 43.

    Case 248/83, Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (ECJ 21 May 1985), para. 34.

  44. 44.

    Case C-188/15, Asma Bougnaoui and Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA (ECJ 14 March 2017).

  45. 45.

    ECJ, C-188/15, Opinion of Advocate General J. Sharpston, 13 July 2016, para. 99.

  46. 46.

    Case C-188/15, Asma Bougnaoui and Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA (ECJ 14 March 2017), para. 40, emphasis added.

  47. 47.

    Case C-54/07, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV (10 July 2008).

  48. 48.

    Śledzińska-Simon (2016), p. 214.

  49. 49.

    Śledzińska-Simon (2016), p. 215.

  50. 50.

    Case C-157/15, Samira Achbita and Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV (ECJ 14 March 2017), para. 79.

  51. 51.

    ECJ, C-157/15, Opinion of Advocate General J. Kokott, 31 May 2016, para. 87.

  52. 52.

    Case C-273/97, Angela Maria Sirdar v The Army Board and Secretary of State for Defence (ECJ 26 October 1999).

  53. 53.

    Case C-229/08, Colin Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (ECJ 12 January 2010).

  54. 54.

    Case C-447/09, Reinhard Prigge and Others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (ECJ 13 September 2011).

  55. 55.

    Case C-416/13, Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo (ECJ 13 November 2014) and Case C-258/15, Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias (ECJ 15 November 2016).

  56. 56.

    Consequently, it would be possible to exclude, for those reasons, a male Sikh employee who insisted for religious reasons on wearing a turban; ECJ, C-188/15, Opinion of Advocate General J. Sharpston, 13 July 2016.

  57. 57.

    ECJ, C-157/15, Opinion of Advocate General J. Kokott, 31 May 2016.

  58. 58.

    ECJ, C-188/15, Opinion of Advocate General J. Sharpston, 13 July 2016.

  59. 59.

    ECJ, C-157/15, Opinion of Advocate General J. Kokott, 31 May 2016.

  60. 60.

    Case 165/82, Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (ECJ 8 November 1983).

  61. 61.

    Case 222/84, Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (ECJ 15 May 1986), para. 38; similarly Case C-273/97, Angela Maria Sirdar v The Army Board and Secretary of State for Defence (ECJ 26 October 1999), para. 26 and Case C-285/98, Tanja Kreil v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ECJ 11 January 2000), para. 23.

  62. 62.

    Case 318/86, Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (ECJ 30 June 1988).

  63. 63.

    Case 222/84, Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (ECJ 15 May 1986), para. 39.

  64. 64.

    Case C-273/97, Angela Maria Sirdar v The Army Board and Secretary of State for Defence (ECJ 26 October 1999).

  65. 65.

    Pitt (2009), p. 5.

  66. 66.

    Case C-285/98, Tanja Kreil v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ECJ 11 January 2000), para. 29.

  67. 67.

    Case C-229/08, Colin Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (ECJ 12 January 2010), para. 43.

  68. 68.

    Pitt (2011), p. 5.

  69. 69.

    Case C-447/09, Reinhard Prigge and Others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (ECJ 13 September 2011), para. 75.

  70. 70.

    Case C-416/13, Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo (ECJ 13 November 2014), para. 54.

  71. 71.

    Case C-258/15 Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias (ECJ 15 November 2016), para. 46.

References

  • Barnard, Catherine. 2012. EU Employment Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burri, Susanne. 2006. How to Interpret the Concept of Genuine Occupational Requirements? Paper Presented at the ERA Seminar: The Fight Against Discrimination, Academy of European Law, Trier, 30–31 October 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canor, Iris. 2002. Harmonizing the European Community’s Standard of Judicial Review? European Public Law 8: 135–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Łopatowska, Jolanta. 2009. Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief in the EU Legal Framework. Derecho у Religion IV: 71–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maliszewska-Nienartowicz, Justyna. 2014. Direct and Indirect Discrimination in European Union Law – How to Draw a Dividing Line? International Journal of Social Sciences III: 41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir, Elise. 2015. From the Principle of Equal Treatment to EU Equality Law. In The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law, ed. Anthony Arnull and Damian Chalmers, 919–942. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, Gwyneth. 2009. Genuine Occupational Requirements. Paper Presented at the ERA Seminar: The EC Anti-discrimination Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78 in Practice, Academy of European Law, Trier, 27–28 April 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Genuine Occupational Requirements in European Law. https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/19801/1/Pitt-G-19801.pdf.

  • Sargeant, Malcolm. 2013. Distinguishing Between Justifiable Treatment and Prohibited Discrimination in Respect of Age. Journal of Business Law 4: 398–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Śledzińska-Simon, Anna. 2016. Is There a Place for the Islamic Veil in the Workplace? Managerial Prerogatives and the Duty of Reasonable Accommodation in the EU Anti-discrimination Governance. ERA Forum 17: 203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, The Faculty of Political Science and Security Studies, Toruń, Poland

    Justyna Maliszewska-Nienartowicz

Authors
  1. Justyna Maliszewska-Nienartowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justyna Maliszewska-Nienartowicz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Europa-Institut, Faculty of Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Thomas Giegerich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Maliszewska-Nienartowicz, J. (2020). Genuine and Determining Occupational Requirement as an Exception to the Prohibition of Discrimination in EU Law. In: Giegerich, T. (eds) The European Union as Protector and Promoter of Equality. European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43763-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43764-0

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation