Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Substantive Formal Equality in EU Non-Discrimination 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))

  • 903 Accesses

Abstract

For over 50 years, non-discrimination under EU-law has developed under the aegis of a formal, procedural Aristotelian approach to equality. Against this backdrop, this paper explores how a number of CJEU cases adopt a more substantive approach to non-discrimination. It documents standout cases that embrace substantive equality in direct and indirect discrimination. It explores how the CJEU has promoted substantive equality in cases of non-discriminatory differential treatment, and through positive action or discrimination. It shows how formal EU equality law has gradually been retooled towards substantive equality aims, redefining piecemeal the overarching purpose of EU equality law in the process.

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.

    Fredman (2016).

  2. 2.

    Comp. McCrudden (2003), pp. 3–6.

  3. 3.

    See e.g., Case 13/63, Government of the Italian Republic v Commission of the European Economic Community, (ECJ 17 July 1963); Case 283/83, Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz, (ECJ 13 November 1984); Case T-10/93, A v Commission, (ECJ 14 April 1994); Case C-279/93, Finanzampt Köln-Alstadt v Roland Schumacker, (ECJ 14 February 1995); Case C-137/00, Milk Marque and National Farmers’ Union, (ECJ 9 September 2003); Case C-157/02, Rieser Internationale Transporte GmbH v Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs- AG (Asfinag), (ECJ 5 February 2004); Case C-304/01, Spain v Commission, (ECJ 9 September 2004); Case C-486/18, RE v Praxair, (ECJ 8 May 2019).

  4. 4.

    De Vos (2007) and Tobler (2014).

  5. 5.

    Tobler (2005), pp. 26–28; Wentholt (1999), pp. 53–55.

  6. 6.

    Comp. Haverkort (2012).

  7. 7.

    Bell (2002).

  8. 8.

    Barnard (2014).

  9. 9.

    See 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) (hereinafter Race and Ethnic Origin Directive); Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation OJ L 303/16–22 (2000) (hereinafter General Framework Directive); Council Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, OJ L 373/37–43 (2004); 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 (recast) OJ L 204/23–36 (2006); Council Directive 2010/41/EU on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity, OJ L 180/1–6 (2010).

  10. 10.

    See Tobler (2014).

  11. 11.

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

  12. 12.

    Case C-303/06, S. Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law, (ECJ 17 July 2008), para. 47.

  13. 13.

    Case C-83/14, CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, (ECJ 16 July 2015). The Court developed its reasoning both for direct and indirect discrimination.

  14. 14.

    Case C-177/88, Elisabeth Johanna Pacifica Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen (VJV-Centrum) Plus, (ECJ 8 November 1990), para. 12.

  15. 15.

    Case C-342/93, Joan Gillespie and others v Northern Health and Social Services Boards, (ECJ 13 February 1996), para. 22; Case C-147/02, Michelle K. Alabaster v Woolwich plc and Secretary of State for Social Security, (ECJ 30 March 2004), para. 47; Case C-284/02, Land Brandenburg v Ursula Sass, (ECJ 18 November 2004), para. 36.

  16. 16.

    See Case C-13/94, P. v S. and Cornwall City Council, (ECJ 30 April 1996); Case C-117/01, K.B. v National Health Service Pensions Agency, Secretary of State for Health, (ECJ 7 January 2004); Case C-423/04, Sarah Margaret Richards v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (ECJ 27 April 2006).

  17. 17.

    See Bell (2012).

  18. 18.

    Case C-267/06, Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, (ECJ 1 April 2008); Case C-147/08, Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, (ECJ 10 May 2011); Case C- 267/12, Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres, (ECJ 12 December 2013).

  19. 19.

    Case C-177/88, Elisabeth Johanna Pacifica Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen (VJV-Centrum) Plus, (ECJ 8 November 1990), para. 17.

  20. 20.

    In Dekker, the identification of a virtual comparator of a different sex would of course be impossible if the scope of comparability were limited to pregnancy per se and not to absence from work. Such a narrow approach may explain the Court’s motivation in rejecting the need for a comparator.

  21. 21.

    Case 152/73, Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost, (ECJ 12 February 1974), para. 11. The Court had first acknowledged indirect discrimination in Case 15/69, Württembergische Milchverwertung-Südmilch AG v Salvatore Ugliola, (ECJ 15 October 1969).

  22. 22.

    See Tobler (2009).

  23. 23.

    Case C-237/94, John O’Flynn and Adjudication Officer, (ECJ 23 May 1996), paras. 20–21.

  24. 24.

    See the directives mentioned in footnote 2, my italics.

  25. 25.

    Case C-167/97, Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte Nicole Seymour-Smith and Laura Perez, (ECJ 9 February 1999), paras. 59 and 62.

  26. 26.

    De Vos (2007) and Tobler (2009).

  27. 27.

    Tobler (2009).

  28. 28.

    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. 43.

  29. 29.

    Art. 5 General Framework Directive.

  30. 30.

    Ferri and Lawson (2016).

  31. 31.

    Case C-335/11 and Case C-337/11 (joined), HK Danmark, on behalf of Jette Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab v HK Danmark, on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, on behalf of Pro Display A/S, (ECJ 11 April 2013), para. 54.

  32. 32.

    Council Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding OJ L 348/1–7 (1992); Council Directive 2010/18/EU implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC, OJ L 68/13–20 (2010).

  33. 33.

    Case 184/83, Ulrich Hofmann v Barmer Ersatzkasse, (ECJ 12 July 1984), para. 25; Case C-32/93, Carole Louise Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd, (ECJ 14 July 1994), para. 20; Case C-394/96, Mary Brown v Rentokil Ltd, (ECJ 13 June 1998), para. 17; Case C-203/03, Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria, (ECJ 1 February 2005), para. 43.

  34. 34.

    Case C-136/95, Caisse nationale d’assurance vieillesse des travailleurs salariés v Thibault, (ECJ 30 April 1998), para. 26; Case C-207/98, Mahlburg v Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, (ECJ 3 February 2000), para. 26.

  35. 35.

    Case C-243/95, Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton v the Revenue Commission and the Department of Finance, (ECJ 17 June 1998), para. 42.

  36. 36.

    Case C-284/02, Land Brandenburg v Ursula Sass, (ECJ 8 November 2004), paras. 34–37.

  37. 37.

    Art. 2(3) 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 L 39/40–42 (1976), now art. 28 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).

  38. 38.

    Case C-345/89, Criminal proceedings against Alfred Stoeckel, (ECJ 25 July 1991).

  39. 39.

    Case C-66/96, Høj Pedersen and others, (ECJ 19 November 1998); Case C-207/98, Mahlburg v Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, (ECJ 3 February 2000).

  40. 40.

    Case C-104/09, Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez v Sesa Start España ETT SA, (ECJ 30 September 2010).

  41. 41.

    See the directives mentioned in footnote 2. In the case of gender, positive action is defined with explicit reference to ‘specific advantages in order to make it easier for the underrepresented sex to pursue a vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in professional careers’ (art. 157 TFEU juncto art. 3 Recast Equal Treatment Directive).

  42. 42.

    See De Vos (2007) and the references there.

  43. 43.

    Commission v. France; Case C-407/98, Abrahamson and Anderson, (ECJ 6 July 2000); Case C-319/03, Serge Briheche v Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale and Ministre de la Justice. (ECJ 30 September 2004).

  44. 44.

    Case C-407/98, Abrahamson and Anderson, (ECJ 6 July 2000); Case C-476/99, H. Lommers v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, (ECJ 19 March 2002); Case C-319/03, Serge Briheche v Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale and Ministre de la Justice. (ECJ 30 September 2004).

  45. 45.

    Case C-450/93, Eckhard Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen, (ECJ 17 October 1995); Case C-152/84, M. H. Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching), (ECJ 26 February 1986).

  46. 46.

    Commission v France; Case C-366/99, 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, (ECJ 29 November 2001); Case C-476/99, H. Lommers v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, (ECJ 19 March 2002); Case C-104/09, Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez gegen Sesa Start España ETT SA, (ECJ 30. September 2010).

  47. 47.

    Commission v. France, Case C-407/98, Abrahamson and Anderson, (ECJ 6 July 2000); Case C-366/99, 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, (ECJ 29 November 2001).

  48. 48.

    Case C-407/98, Abrahamson and Anderson, (ECJ 6 July 2000); Case C-476/99, H. Lommers v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, (ECJ 19 March 2002); Case C-319/03, Serge Briheche v Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale and Ministre de la Justice. (ECJ 30 September 2004).

  49. 49.

    Case C-104/09, Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez gegen Sesa Start España ETT SA, (ECJ 30. September 2010).

  50. 50.

    Case C-450/93, Eckhard Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen, (ECJ 17 October 1995); Case 152/84, M. H. Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching), (ECJ 26 February 1986); Case C-157/97, Georg Badeck and Others, interveners: Hessische Ministerpräsident and Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen, (ECJ 28 March 2000); Case C-319/03, Serge Briheche v Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale and Ministre de la Justice, (ECJ 30 September 2004).

  51. 51.

    Case C-193/17, Cresco Investigation GmbH v Markus Achatzi, (ECJ 22 January 2019), para. 65.

  52. 52.

    See De Vos and Culliford (2014).

  53. 53.

    Proposal for a Directive on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures, COM/2012/0614 final - 2012/0299(COD) of 14 November 2012.

  54. 54.

    Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm, (ECJ 22 November 2005), para. 65, my italics.

  55. 55.

    Id., para. 63.

  56. 56.

    Case C-45/09, Gisela Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges, (ECJ 12 October 2010), para. 51; Case C-411/05, Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA, (ECJ 16 October 2007), para. 72. See, in the same vein, Case C-88/08, David Hütter v Technische Universität Graz, (ECJ 18 June 2009); Case C-341/08, Domnica Petersen v Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe, (ECJ 12 January 2010); Case C-159/10, Case C-160/10 (joined cases) Gerhard Fuchs and Peter Köhler v Land Hessen, (ECJ 21 July 2011); Case C-297/10, Case C- 298/10, (joined cases) Sabine Hennigs v Eisenbahn-Bundesamt and Land Berlin v Alexander Mai, (ECJ 8 September 2011); Case C-141/11, Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB, (ECJ 5 July 2012); Case C-286/12, European Commission v Hungary, (ECJ 6 November 2012).

  57. 57.

    See and comp. Dewhurst (2013), Doron et al. (2018) and Schiek (2011).

  58. 58.

    Art. 6 TEU juncto art. 21 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000 and art. 9 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

  59. 59.

    Case C-414/16, Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV, (ECJ 17 April 2018), paras. 51 and 61.

  60. 60.

    Case C-157/15, Samira Achbita and Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV, (ECJ 14 March 2017), paras. 37 ff.

  61. 61.

    Id., paras. 42–43.

References

  • Barnard, Catherine. 2014. EU Employment Law and the European Social Model: The Past, the Present and the Future. Current Legal Problems 67: 199–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Mark. 2002. Anti-Discrimination Law and the EU. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation: Alternative Pathways in EU Equality Law. The American Journal of Comparative Law 60: 127–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vos, Marc. 2007. Beyond Formal Equality. Positive Action Under Directives 2000/43/EC AND 2000/78/EC, European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, 81.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vos, Marc, and Philippe Culliford. 2014. Gender Quotas for Company Boards. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewhurst, Elaine. 2013. Intergenerational Balance, Mandatory Retirement and Age Discrimination in Europe: How Can the ECJ Better Support National Courts in Finding a Balance Between the Generations?’. Common Market Law Review 50: 1333–1362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doron, Israel, Ann Numhauser-Henning, Benny Spanier, Nena Georgantzi, and Eugenio Mantovani. 2018. Ageism and Anti-Ageism in the Legal System: A Review of Key Themes. In Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism, ed. Liat Ayalon and Clemens Tesch-Römer. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferri, Delia, and Anna Lawson. 2016. Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled People in Employment - A Legal Analysis of the Situation in EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Available at: <https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ada7afd0-57ab-4495-8b03-f11757c561f6>. https://doi.org/10.2838/53553.

  • Fredman, Sarah. 2016. Substantive equality revisited. International Journal of Constitutional Law 14(3): 712–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haverkort, Sarah. 2012. European Non-Discrimination Law, 378 p. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrudden, Christopher. 2003. The New Concept of Equality. ERA 4: 9–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, John. 1998. Equality of Opportunity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schiek, Dagmar. 2011. Age Discrimination Before the ECJ – Conceptual and Theoretical Issues. Common Market Law Review 48: 777–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobler, Christa. 2005. Indirect Discrimination: A Case Study into the Development of the Legal Concept of Indirect Discrimination Under EC law. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Limits and Potential of the Concept of Indirect Discrimination. Available at: <https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/aa081c13-197b-41c5-a93a-a1638e886e61>. https://doi.org/10.2767/56607.

  • ———. 2014. Equality and Non-Discrimination Under the ECHR and EU Law. ZaöRV 74: 521–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wentholt, Klaartje. 1999. Formal and Substantive Equal Treatment: The Limitations and the Potential of the Legal Concept of Equality. In Non-Discrimination Law: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Titia Loenen and Peter Rodrigues, 53–64. The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Macquarie University, Law School, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Marc De Vos

Authors
  1. Marc De Vos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc De Vos .

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

De Vos, M. (2020). Substantive Formal Equality in EU Non-Discrimination 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_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_13

  • 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