Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are Equality and Non-Discrimination Part of the EU’s Constitutional Identity?

  • 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))

  • 788 Accesses

Abstract

This article elaborates on Article 2 TEU and how it is specified in the logic of values, aims, competencies and policies from which the European Union derives its constitutional identity. It follows from the history as well from the object and purpose of the founding treaties that equality and non-discrimination form part of this identity. A particular focus will be on equality in the private sector, which illustrates this special feature of the EU legal order.

Finally, possible justification for, and some legal consequences of, unequal treatment and discrimination will be addressed.

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.

    This is not to imply that the principles of equality and non-discrimination may only operate as principles in the sense of legal theory as Josef Esser, Ronald Dworkin, or Robert Alexy have it; see Grünberger (2013), pp. 763–767.

  2. 2.

    As it is the case according to Article 23 of the German Basic Law and Chapter 10, Article 6 of the Swedish Instrument of Government.

  3. 3.

    Pernice (2001), Peters (2001), Giegerich (2003) and Kadelbach (2007).

  4. 4.

    Hallstein (1969), p. 33; Zuleeg (1994) and Mayer (2017).

  5. 5.

    Case C-619/18, Commission v Poland (ECJ 24 June 2019). para. 46 (with further references).

  6. 6.

    Declaration on European Identity (1973), Bull EC 1973, No. 12, 118; see Jacqué (2015), para. 1.

  7. 7.

    The Copenhagen criteria only refer to “institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities”, European Council in Copenhagen (21–22 June 1993), Conclusions of the Presidency, SN 180/1/93 Rev 1, para. 7 A iii (p. 13), so that Article 2 TEU is more explicit in that respect.

  8. 8.

    Council Decision 2010/48/EC concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, OJ L 23/35-36 (2010). The act of accession is based on what are today Articles 19, 114, and 300 TFEU. According to Article 43 CRPD, the Convention is also open to organisations of regional integration, which is not the case with the 1965 UN Convention on the elimination of racial discrimination and the 1979 UN Convention against discrimination of women, which are open only to states.

  9. 9.

    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); 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), respectively, all based on Article 13 EC (today Article 19 TFEU).

  10. 10.

    Case C-236/09, Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats v Conseil des ministres (ECJ 1 March 2011).

  11. 11.

    Cf. Jestaedt (2005), pp. 305–327.

  12. 12.

    Case C-127/07, Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine and Others v Premier ministre (ECJ 16 December 2008), para. 23, citing Case 106/83, Sermide v Cassa Conguaglio Zucchero (ECJ 13 December 1984), para. 28 and following case law.

  13. 13.

    Case C-13/94, P v S and Cornwall County Council (ECJ 30 April 1996), para. 22.

  14. 14.

    Case C-148/13, A, B, C et al., v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (ECJ 2 December 2014), para. 65.

  15. 15.

    ETS No. 157.

  16. 16.

    Hilf and Schorkopf (2013), para. 38 (with further reference).

  17. 17.

    Id., para. 43.

  18. 18.

    Case C-285/98, Kreil v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ECJ 11 January 2000); in the wake of this judgment, Article 12 a(4) of the German Grundgesetz was modified; accordingly, women must not be obliged to serve in arms, whereas such service was excluded altogether before, even on a voluntary basis.

  19. 19.

    This horizontal effect of the non-discrimination principle is to be confused with the direct horizontal effect of directives, which remains excluded; see Case C-144/04, Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (ECJ 22 November 2005), para. 77; Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH (ECJ 19 January 2010), paras. 22 ff., 47 ff., It is controversial whether this horizontal effect is of a direct or an indirect nature, since the ECJ has limited itself to requiring that colliding domestic law be inapplicable, see Schmahl (2014), para. 168. The effect, however, is similar, see also de Mol (2011). In the cited cases, private employers must not limit the duration of contracts to time periods or calculate time limits for the termination of contracts according to the age of employees.

  20. 20.

    Case C-441/14, Ajos v Rasmussen (ECJ 19 April 2016), which confirmed the Mangold rationale (above, note 19). The Danish High Court declared this jurisprudence as non-binding, legislation enacted under the Danish Constitution prevailed; see Højesterett, Case 15/2014, Dansk Industri v Sucession Karsten Eigil Rasmussen, UfR 2017.824 H and comment by Holdgaard et al. (2018).

  21. 21.

    Case C-45/09, Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsgesellschaft (ECJ 12 October 2010), para. 45; for the framework Directive see above, note 9.

  22. 22.

    Case C-414/16, Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e. V. (ECJ 17 April 2018); Case C-68/17, IR v. JQ (ECJ 11 September 2018).

  23. 23.

    Böhm (1966); see the exposition of Böhm’s legal and economic philosophy by Teubner (2014); for a comprehensive account see Mestmäcker (2007); for not entirely unrelated, but in terms of legal theory more refined concepts of the societal constitution see Wiethölter (2003) and Teubner (2012).

  24. 24.

    Böhm himself did not go so far, even though such a conclusion would not have been a contradiction to his notion of a private law society; see Grünberger (2013), pp. 254–264; for further elaboration see Grundmann (2007).

  25. 25.

    Case 43/75, Defrenne II v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena (ECJ 8 April 1976).

  26. 26.

    Case C-415/93, Bosman v Union royale belge des sociétés de football association (ECJ 15 December 1995); Case C-438/05, Viking Line v International Transport Workers’ Federation (ECJ 11 December 2007); Case C-341/05, Laval v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, (ECJ 18 December 2007).

  27. 27.

    Kadelbach (2010), pp. 445–448; for an equality case between market citizens see Case 131/73, Criminal proceedings against Giulio and Adriano Grosoli (ECJ 12 December 1973).

  28. 28.

    To be more precise, one of the essential elements of Union citizenship is the prohibition of discrimination because of free movement; cf. also Case C-224/98, D’Hoop v Office national de l’emploi (ECJ 11 July 2002). This clarification helps to explain the selection of citizens’ rights in Articles 21 to 23 TFEU that refer to areas states usually reserve to their own nationals.

  29. 29.

    Cf., with explicit reference to Franz Böhm, Mangold (2016), pp. 68–69.

  30. 30.

    Joined Cases 17/61, C-20/61, Klöckner-Werke v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECJ 13 July 1962).

  31. 31.

    Case-law on that distinction goes as far back as to Case 152/73, Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost (ECJ 12 February 1974), paras. 10–11; on direct and indirect discrimination generally Sacksofsky (2017), pp. 70–90.

  32. 32.

    Cf. Case C-83/14, CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (ECJ 16 July 2015), para. 112 (direct discrimination based on ethnic origin).

  33. 33.

    For the legal test to be applied see the contribution by Justyna Malszenska-Nienartowicz in this volume.

  34. 34.

    For examples see Case C-54/07, Feryn v Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding (ECJ 10 July 2008), paras. 25–40 (ethnic origin); Case C-81/12, Asociaia Accept v Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării (ECJ 25 April 2013), paras. 60–73 (sexual orientation).

  35. 35.

    Case 14/83, von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (ECJ 10 April 1984), para. 23; Case 177/88, Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen (ECJ 8 November 1990), para. 23; it is not required that national law provides for the award of punitive damages, see Case C-407/14, Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España SA (ECJ 17 December 2015), para. 43.

  36. 36.

    Case C-286/12, Commission v Hungary (ECJ 6 November 2012); the constitutional dimension is directly addressed in Case C-619/18, Commission v Poland (ECJ 11 April 2019). One might argue that non-discrimination policies are (mis)used as a means to an end in those cases; that argument, it is submitted, would not affect the conclusion that early retirement because of the belonging to a defined generation amounts to age discrimination and hence to an infringement of the personal rights of the judges concerned.

  37. 37.

    Cf. Mangold (2016), pp. 289–312.

References

  • Böhm, Franz. 1966. Privatrechtsgesellschaft und Marktwirtschaft. ORDO 17: 75–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Mol, Mirjam. 2011. The Novel Approach to the CJEU on the Horizontal Effect of the EU Principle of Non-Discrimination: (Unbridled) Expansionism of EU Law? Maastricht Journal 18: 109–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giegerich, Thomas. 2003. Europäische Verfassung und deutsche Verfassung im transnationalen Konstitutionalisierungsprozess: wechselseitige Rezeption, konstitutionelle Evolution und föderale Verflechtung. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grünberger, Michael. 2013. Personale Gleichheit. Der Grundsatz der Gleichbehandlung im Zivilrecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann, Stefan. 2007. Europa- und wirtschaftsrechtliche Grundlagen der “Privatrechtsgesellschaft”. In Privatrechtsgesellschaft, ed. Karl Riesenhuber, 105–130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallstein, Walter, et al. 1969. Der unvollendete Bundesstaat. Europäische Erfahrungen und Erkenntnisse. Vienna: Econ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilf, Meinhard, and Frank Schorkopf. 2013. Art. 2 [Grundlegende Werte]. In Das Recht der Europäischen Union, ed. Eberhard Grabitz, Meinhard Hilf, and Martin Nettesheim. Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holdgaard, Rass, Daniella Elkan, and Gustav Krohn Schaldemose. 2018. From Co-Operation to Collision: The ECJ’s Ajos Ruling and the Danish Supreme Court’s Refusal to Comply. CML Review 55: 17–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacqué, Jean Paul. 2015. Artikel 2 [Grundlegende Werte]. In Europäisches Unionsrechts, ed. Hans von der Groeben, Jürgen Schwarze, and Armin Hatje, 65–70. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jestaedt, Matthias. 2005. Diskriminierungsschutz und Privatautonomie. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 64: 298–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadelbach, Stefan. 2007. Autonomie und Bindung der Rechtsetzung in gestuften Rechtsordnungen. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 66: 7–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Union Citizenship. In Principles of European Constitutional Law, ed. Armin von Bogdandy and Jürgen Bast, 443–478. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangold, Anna Katharina. 2016. Demokratische Inklusion durch Recht. Antidiskriminierungsrecht als Ermöglichungsbedingung der demokratischen Bedingung von Freuen und Gleichen. PhD Thesis (habilitationsschrift), Frankfurt am Main (forthcoming, manuscript on file with the author).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, Franz. 2017. Die Europäische Union als Rechtsgemeinschaft. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 70: 3631–3638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mestmäcker, Ernst Joachim. 2007. Franz Böhm (1985–1977). In Deutschsprachige Zivilrechtslehrer des 20. Jahrhunderts in Berichten ihrer Schüler Band 1, ed. Stefan Grundmann and Karl Riesenhuber, 31–56. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice, Ingolf. 2001. Europäisches und nationales Verfassungsrecht. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 60: 148–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, Anne. 2001. Elemente einer Theorie der Verfassung Europas. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacksofsky, Ute. 2017. Was heißt: Ungleichbehandlung “wegen”? In Gleichheitsdogmatik heute, ed. Simon Kempny and Philipp Reimer, 63–90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmahl, Stefanie. 2014. Gleichheitsgarantien. In Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Vol. 2: Europäischer Grundrechtsschutz, ed. Christoph Grabenwarter, 551–633. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, Gunther. 2012. Verfassungsfragmente: Gesellschaftlicher Konstitutionalismus in der Globalisierung. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Wirtschaftsverfassung oder Wirtschaftsdemokratie? Franz Böhm und Hugo Sinzheimer jenseits des Nationalstaates. In 100 Jahre Rechtswissenschaft in Frankfurt, ed. Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, 395–534. Frankfurt: Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiethölter, Rudolf. 2003. Recht-Fertigungen eines Gesellschafts-Rechts. In Rechtsverfassungsrecht. Recht-Fertigung zwischen Privatrechtsdogmatik und Gesellschaftstheorie, ed. Christian Joerges and Gunther Teubner, 13–21. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuleeg, Manfred. 1994. Die Europäische Gemeinschaft als Rechtsgemeinschaft. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 47: 545–549.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Institut für Öffentliches Recht, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Stefan Kadelbach

Authors
  1. Stefan Kadelbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Kadelbach .

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

Kadelbach, S. (2020). Are Equality and Non-Discrimination Part of the EU’s Constitutional Identity?. 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_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_2

  • 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