Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uniformity or Variation: Should the CJEU ‘Carry Over’ its Gender Equality Approach to the Post-2000 Equality Grounds?

  • 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))

Abstract

The CJEU has developed a purposive and autonomous approach to applying EU gender equality norms, which has been instrumental in driving forward the development of equal pay and sex discrimination law across Europe. In so doing, the Court has attracted little backlash or resistance: indeed, its gender equality case-law is one of the most acclaimed and least controversial elements of its jurisprudence. The Court has carried over this approach to the ‘post-2000’ equality grounds now also protected under EU law, namely age, disability, religion or belief, race and ethnicity, and sexual orientation. However, there are signs emerging in the case-law that the gender equality template may not be a perfect fit for all of these different non-discrimination grounds. Furthermore, aspects of the Court’s gender-influenced case-law in respect of the post-2000 grounds have begun to attract a degree of backlash. This chapter analyses these tensions, and the normative issues arising as a result of the ‘carry over’ of the Court’s gender equality approach to the post-2000 grounds.

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.

    In addition, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) had adopted the Equal Remuneration Convention (No. 100) in 1951, which affirmed the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value, and also the Equal Remuneration Recommendation (No. 90) of 1951 (No. 90).

  2. 2.

    Beck (1978), pp. 112–131.

  3. 3.

    Ibid.

  4. 4.

    For example, the UK had already enacted the relatively detailed Equal Pay Act 1970 when it entered the EEC in 1973.

  5. 5.

    Case C-43/75, Defrenne (ECJ 8 April 1976), ECR 455.

  6. 6.

    See e.g. Case C-237/85, Rummler v Dato-Druck (ECJ 1 July 1986), ECR 2101.

  7. 7.

    See e.g. Case C-109/88, Danfoss, (ECJ 17 October1989), ECR 3199.

  8. 8.

    In Defrenne, the Court emphasised the importance of its ‘double aim…at once economic and social’ of both eliminating unfair competitive advantages and bringing about the ‘constant improvement of…living and working conditions’: Case C-43/75, Defrenne (ECJ 8 April 1976), ECR 455, [8]-[11].

  9. 9.

    Chalmers and Barroso have noted that individual rights have tended to be recognised within EU law when they ‘furthered the realization of the collective objectives of EU government’: this analysis fits the pattern outlined in this paper with regard to equal pay and sex discrimination more generally. See Chalmers and Barroso (2014), pp. 105–134.

  10. 10.

    Case C-26/62, Van Gend & Loos (ECJ 5 February1963) ECR 1.

  11. 11.

    Case C-6/64, Costa v ENEL (ECJ 15 July 1964) ECR 585.

  12. 12.

    See also Article 6 of ILO Recommendation No. 90 (1951).

  13. 13.

    For e.g. developments in the UK, see O’Cinneide and Liu (2014), pp. 239–265.

  14. 14.

    Mulder (2017).

  15. 15.

    Significantly, when EU gender equality was revised and updated in the mid-2000s, no substantial alterations were made: see 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) (‘the Recast Gender Equality Directive’), OJ L 204/23–36 (2006).

  16. 16.

    Case C-158/97, Badeck, (ECJ 28 March 2000), ECR I-1875.

  17. 17.

    Case C-407/98, Abrahamsson v Fogelqvist (ECJ 6 July 2000), ECR I-5539.

  18. 18.

    Article 157(4) was inserted into the TFEU via the Treaty of Amsterdam to affirm that ‘the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting measures providing for specific advantages’ to enable members of an underrepresented sex ‘to pursue a vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in professional careers’.

  19. 19.

    See in general McCrudden (2019).

  20. 20.

    See in general Ellis and Watson (2013).

  21. 21.

    Similarly, non-discrimination on the basis of sex was stated to form an element of the wider right to non-discrimination by Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, while Article 23 of the EU Charter affirmed the particular importance of the right to equal treatment as between men and women.

  22. 22.

    For an overview, see the essays collected in Belavusau and Henrard (2019).

  23. 23.

    See in general Bell (2002).

  24. 24.

    O’Cinneide (2012).

  25. 25.

    Case C-267/06, Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen (ECJ 1 April 2008), ECR I-1757.

  26. 26.

    Case C-177/88, Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen (VJV-Centrum) Plus (ECJ 8 November 1990), ECR I-03941.

  27. 27.

    Case C-144/04, Mangold v Helm (ECJ 22 November 2005), ECR I-9981.

  28. 28.

    Ibid. [75]–[76]. The Court had adopted a similar approach in relation to gender equality, recognising (as already noted) as far back as Defrenne that equal treatment between men and women constituted a general principle of EU law.

  29. 29.

    Ibid. [77].

  30. 30.

    See e.g. Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG, (ECJ 19 January 2010), ECR I-365.

  31. 31.

    Subsequently, in its later judgment in Kücükdevici, the Court concluded that this general principle was linked to the non-discrimination provisions of Article 21 of the EU Charter, thus giving the equal treatment principle a more tangible textual basis within the framework of the EU treaties.

  32. 32.

    See e.g. Case C-416/13, Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo, (ECJ 13 November 2014); and also O’Cinneide (2012).

  33. 33.

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

  34. 34.

    O’Cinneide (2012).

  35. 35.

    See e.g. Case C-109/88, Danfoss, (ECJ 17 October 1989), ECR 3199.

  36. 36.

    See e.g. Case C-170/84, Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz (ECJ 13 Mai 1986), ECR 1607.

  37. 37.

    Case C-45/09, Rosenbladt, (ECJ 12 October 2010), ECR I-09391.

  38. 38.

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

  39. 39.

    Ibid. [38].

  40. 40.

    Howard (2017), pp. 348–366.

  41. 41.

    Case C-49/18, Carlos Escribano Vindel v Ministerio de Justicia (ECJ 7 February 2019) (a challenge to judicial salary cuts which varied according to length of service).

  42. 42.

    See also Case C-154/18, Tomás Horgan and Claire Keegan v Minister for Education, (ECJ 14 February 2019) (a challenge to Irish scheme introducing lower salary scales for new entrants to the profession of teacher, while leaving unaltered the pay of those teachers already in employment).

  43. 43.

    Atrey (2018), pp. 625–642.

  44. 44.

    Note for example that the Preamble to Council Directive 2019/1158/EU on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU, OJ L 188/79–93 (2019) refers to the CPRD and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in addition to Articles 23 and 33 of the EU Charter.

  45. 45.

    These legal issues are complicated by the existence of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights—a relatively new element of the EU legal architecture. What role should ‘external’ (i.e. non-EU) human rights standards play in the interpretation of Charter rights and EU primary legislation as they relate to equality and non-discrimination? Should the ECHR jurisprudence be given special status, given that the Article 52(3) of the EU Charter recognises that Convention rights constitute a floor of rights protection?

  46. 46.

    A special situation exists with regard to the CPRD in this regard, given that it forms part of the EU legal order. But a specific question arises here as to how much specific weight should be given to its provisions in interpreting EU law, as illustrated by cases like Case C-354/13, Fag og Arbejde (acting on behalf of Kaltoft) v Kommunernes Landsforening, (ECJ 18 December 2014) and C-363/12, Z, (ECJ 18 March 2014).

  47. 47.

    Case C-54/07, Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en voor Racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV (ECJ 10 July 2008), ECR I-5187.

  48. 48.

    See in general Belavusau and Henrard (2019).

  49. 49.

    BVerfG, Beschluss des Zweiten Senats vom 06. Juli 2010 - 2 BvR 2661/06 BVerfGE 126, 286–331.

  50. 50.

    Case C-441/14, Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen, (ECJ 19 April 2016).

  51. 51.

    Case C-15/2014, Dansk Industri, acting for Ajos A/S v Estate of A, Judgment of the Danish Supreme Court, 6 December 2016, UfR 2017.824H. See also Holdgaard et al. (2018), pp. 17–54.

  52. 52.

    For an excellent overview of the arguments being raised in this appeal, see Sauer (2019).

  53. 53.

    See ECJ Case C-507/18, Opinion of Advocate General J. Sharpston, 31 October 2019.

  54. 54.

    Howard (2017).

  55. 55.

    Case C-157/15, Achbita, (ECJ 14 March 2017), fn. 39.

  56. 56.

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

  57. 57.

    See e.g. Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 14 of the ECHR; Article 1(a) of ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958 (No. 111); the Preamble of the European Social Charter 1961 and Article E of the revised European Social Charter of 1996.

  58. 58.

    O’Connell (2009), pp. 211–229.

References

  • Atrey, Shreya. 2018. Race Discrimination in EU Law After Jyske Finans. Common Market Law Review 55 (2): 625–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, David. 1978. Equal Pay and the Implementation of Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome. The Irish Jurist 13 (1): 112–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belavusau, Uladzislau, and Kristin Henrard. 2019. EU Anti-Discrimination Law Beyond Gender. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Mark. 2002. Anti-Discrimination Law and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, Damian, and Luis Barroso. 2014. What Van Gend en Loos Stands for. International Journal of Constitutional Law 12 (1): 105–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, Evelyn, and Phillipa Watson. 2013. EU Anti-Discrimination Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holdgaard, Rass, Daniella Elkan, and Gustav Krohn Schaldemose. 2018. From Cooperation to Collision: The ECJ’s Ajos Ruling and the Danish Supreme Court’s Refusal to Comply. Common Market Law Review 55 (1): 17–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, Erica. 2017. Islamic Headscarves and the CJEU: Achbita and Bougnaoui. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 24 (3): 348–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrudden, Christopher. 2019. Gender-Based Positive Action in Employment in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Legal and Policy Approaches in the EU and EEA. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, Jule. 2017. EU Non-Discrimination Law in the Courts. Approaches to Sex and Sexualities Discrimination in EU Law. London: Hart-Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Cinneide, Colm. 2012. The Evolution and Impact of the Case-Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Cinneide, Colm, and Kimberly Liu. 2014. Defining the Limits of Discrimination Law in the UK – Principle and Pragmatism in Tension. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 14 (4): 239–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Rory. 2009. Cinderella Comes to the Ball: Art 14 and the Right to Non-Discrimination in the ECHR. Legal Studies 29 (2): 211–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, Heiko. 2019. ‘Kirchliche Selbstbestimmung und deutsche Verfassungsidentität: Überlegungen zum Fall “Egenberger”’, Verfassungsblog, 3 May 2019, <https://verfassungsblog.de/kirchliche-selbstbestimmung-und-deutsche-verfassungsidentitaet-ueberlegungen-zum-fall-egenberger/>.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Laws, University College London, London, UK

    Colm O’Cinneide

Authors
  1. Colm O’Cinneide
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colm O’Cinneide .

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

O’Cinneide, C. (2020). Uniformity or Variation: Should the CJEU ‘Carry Over’ its Gender Equality Approach to the Post-2000 Equality Grounds?. 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_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_6

  • 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