Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Non-Discrimination, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights: Who Takes the Lead?

  • 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))

  • 1126 Accesses

Abstract

It is often said that the non-discrimination case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) might diverge because of their different backgrounds and ‘raisons d’être’. In addition, it is almost an orthodoxy that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is ahead of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in developing fundamental rights doctrines in many fields, except for that of non-discrimination law. The question is, however, if these assumptions are correct. This chapter presents four examples in the field of equality and non-discrimination to show that, indeed, there are divergences that seem to reflect the differences in procedural and legal setting and rationale. It proves to be untrue, however, that the ECJ always takes the lead in developing non-discrimination law. In the past decade, several cases can be seen in which the ECtHR is setting the example and the ECJ has (or has not) followed suit. It can be derived from this that alignment and harmonisation of equal treatment and non-discrimination law are needed to avoid that the Member States are confronted with diverging or even conflicting requirements in the future.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See inter alia Julicher et al. (2019), Greer et al. (2018), Imamović (2018), Beijer (2017), Dubout (2017), Groussot et al. (2016), Morano-Foadi and Vickers (2015), Gerards (2015), Koffeman (2015), Haverkort-Speekenbrink (2012), Van de Heyning (2011), Senden (2011), Besson (2008), Gerards (2005), Quinn (2001).

  2. 2.

    Cf. Imamović (2018), pp. 105–106.

  3. 3.

    Imamović (2018), p. 133. It also has been mentioned, however, that in practice, divergences appear to be less frequent than is often supposed; see further De Witte (2011), pp. 24 ff.

  4. 4.

    See further, with references, e.g. Gerards (2015), pp. 47 ff.; Lenaerts (2013), Ellis and Watson (2012), pp. 8–9.

  5. 5.

    On this and on the consequences for protection of fundamental rights, see e.g. Julicher et al. (2019), p. 5; Belavusau and Henrard (2018), p. 1; Imamović (2018), pp. 222 ff.; Greer et al. (2018), pp. 294–295 and 301; Beijer (2017), pp. 165 ff.; Weiß (2017), p. 72; De Búrca (2013a), Douglas-Scott (2011), p. 675; Poiares Maduro (2007), Morijn (2006), Bell (2002), pp. 6 ff. See also e.g., 2/13 Opinion of the Court (ECJ 18 December 2014), para. 1762.

  6. 6.

    Cf. Gerards (2019), pp. 59 ff.; Imamović (2018), p. 17; Gerards (2015), pp. 48–49.

  7. 7.

    Quinn (2001).

  8. 8.

    Other differences may also contribute to this, such as the differences in procedural setting and the existence or lack of specific legislation detailing fundamental rights issues; on these factors, see e.g. Greer et al. (2018), pp. 296–298; Kuijer (2018), p. 4; Beijer (2017), pp. 141 ff. See also briefly Sect. 6 of this Chapter.

  9. 9.

    E.g. Imamović (2018), Beijer (2017), pp. 169 ff.; Groussot et al. (2016), Lock (2016), Gerards (2015), Krommendijk (2015), De Búrca (2013b), Douglas-Scott (2013).

  10. 10.

    Beijer (2017), pp. 165 ff.; Garben (2017), Gerards (2015), De Búrca (2013b).

  11. 11.

    Beijer (2017), p. 174; Gerards (2015), p. 48; Douglas-Scott (2011), p. 649. It also has been said that the ECJ generally has not shown itself to be very ‘fundamental rights minded’ or has failed to recognise relevant case-law of the ECtHR; see e.g. Beijer (2017), pp. 166 ff., with further references to literature and case-law.

  12. 12.

    Gerards (2017a), pp. 323–324.

  13. 13.

    Where no such guidance was available, the ECJ’s case-law has been typified as ‘creative and eclectic’, yet not very consistent or well-principled; Weiß (2017), p. 84. For the development of fundamental rights in the EU, see generally e.g. Van de Heyning (2011), De Búrca (2011), De Witte (1999), Mancini and Keeling (1994), Coppel and O’Neill (1992), Dauses (1985). For the ECJ’s reliance on the ECtHR’s case-law, see e.g. Senden (2011), pp. 356–358.

  14. 14.

    E.g. Gerards (2013a), Muir (2013), pp. 1236 ff.; Bell (2011); but see Xenidis (2019), who contests this traditional understanding and regards it as a ‘disruptive narrative’.

  15. 15.

    See in more detail Dubout (2017), Gerards (2013a), Cartabia (2011), O’Connell (2009), Arnardóttir (2013), Arnardóttir (2007), Baker (2009), p. 714; Wintemute (2004), Arnardóttir (2003), Small (2003), p. 47. To give some examples: the ECtHR only recognised the notion of substantive inequality in 2000 (Application no. 34369/97, Thlimmenos v Greece, (ECtHR 6 April 2000)); see also Dubout (2017), p. 91 and that of indirect discrimination in 2007 (Application no. 57325/00, D.H. and Others v the Czech Republic (ECtHR 13 November 2007). However, it must also be emphasised that there are a few early and very prominent judgments in which the ECtHR developed the standards of review in Article 14 cases (in particular in the Belgian Linguistics case (Application no. 1474/62 (ECtHR 23 July 1968)), and in Application no. 6833/74, Marckx v Belgium (ECtHR 13 June 1979)) in which it developed its ‘very weighty reasons’ test (Application nos. 9214/80, 9473/81 and 9474/81, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v the United Kingdom (ECtHR 28 May 1985), para. 77). See further on this e.g. Gerards (2017b), Gerards (2005), pp. 104 ff. It is therefore questionable if this conventional wisdom is fully correct anyway.

  16. 16.

    See further Xenidis (2019), p. 9; Belavusau and Henrard (2018), p. 6; Schiek (2012), Bell (2011), Gerards (2005), pp. 224 ff.; Bell (2002), pp. 33 ff.; More (1999), p. 522 (speaking of the ‘market unifying role’ of the equality principle).

  17. 17.

    For indirect discrimination, see further Sect. 2. For substantive equality, see e.g. Case 13/63, Italy v Commission (refrigerators) (ECJ 17 July 1963), 165) and, to a certain degree, horizontal effect of the non-discrimination principle (e.g. Case 43/75, Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena (ECJ 8 April 1976). See further Dubout (2017), p. 66; Gerards (2005), pp. 231 ff.

  18. 18.

    See the sources mentioned in footnote 15.

  19. 19.

    Cf. Dubout (2017), p. 65.

  20. 20.

    E.g. Case 345/17, Sergejs Buivids v Datu valsts inspekcija (ECJ 14 February 2019); Case C-203/15, Tele2 Sverige v Watson (ECJ 21 December 2016); Case C-131/12, Google Spain v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (ECJ 13 May 2014); Case C-291/12, Schwartz v Stadt Bochum (ECJ 17 October 2013); Case C-293/12, Digital Rights Ireland, (ECJ 8 April 2014), ECLI:EU:C:2014:238.

  21. 21.

    See in particular Case C-402/05, European Commission and Others v Yassin Abdullah Kadi (ECJ 3 September 2008); Case C-584/10, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Commission (ECJ 18 July 2013). See more recently and also in relation to freedom of expression e.g. T-262/15, Dmitrii Konstantinovich Kiselev v Council of the European Union (GC 15 June 2017).

  22. 22.

    See e.g. Case 661/17, M.A. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal (ECJ 23 January 2019); Case C-673/16, Coman v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări (ECJ 5 June 2018); Case C-473/16, F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (ECJ 25 January 2018); Case C-562/13, Abdida v Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (ECJ 18 December 2014); Case C-199/12 to Case C-201/12, X, Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel (ECJ 7 November 2013); Case C-71/11 and Case C-99/11, Y and Z v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ECJ 5 September 2012).

  23. 23.

    Greer et al. (2018), p. 301; Beijer (2017), p. 174; Weiß (2015), pp. 70 ff. See more critically, however, Groussot et al. (2016), pp. 13–14.

  24. 24.

    Some other issues, such as positive action, substantive scope of application, intersectional discrimination, segregation, discriminatory violence, harassment, reasonable accommodation, the intensity of review of justifications, burden of proof and horizontal effect, are not addressed for reasons of time and space. On those issues, for the EU, see e.g. the various chapters in Belavusau and Henrard (2018), Ward (2018), Ellis and Watson (2012); for the ECHR, see e.g. Gerards (2018), Gerards (2017b), Mačkić (2017), Gerards (2013a), Danisi (2011).

  25. 25.

    See also above, Sect. 1 and see e.g. Dubout (2017), pp. 94 ff.

  26. 26.

    For that reason, the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality figures prominently in the EU Treaties; see in particular Article 18 TFEU and several of the free movement provisions, such as Articles 36 and 37 TFEU (free movement of goods), Article 45 TFEU (free movement of workers), Article 61 TFEU (free movement of services), and Article 65 TFEU (free movement of capital). In addition, for example, discrimination based on national origin is specifically prohibited in relation to State aid (Article 107 TFEU) and customs duties (Article 200 TFEU).

  27. 27.

    It is therefore expressly prohibited by Article 40 TFEU (former Article 34 (2) TEC. See further e.g. Gerards (2005), pp. 240 ff.; Bell (2002), p. 21.

  28. 28.

    For that reason, unequal pay of men and women was prohibited already by Article 119 EEC Treaty (now Article 157 TFEU) and the EEC’s original social policy was based on primarily economic considerations connected to reducing competitive disadvantages; see e.g. Dubout (2017), p. 66; Ellis and Watson (2012), p. 23; Bell (2002), pp. 8–9; Barnard (1996), pp. 322–327.

  29. 29.

    Cf. Dubout (2017), p. 66.

  30. 30.

    In fact, the doctrine was used in the employment context first in relation to discrimination based on nationality in relation to free movement of workers; see Case 152/73, Sotigu v Deutsche Bundespost (ECJ 12 February 1974). See Dubout (2017), p. 95; Ellis and Watson (2012), pp. 148 ff.; Gijzen (2006), p. 69; Tobler (2005), pp. 110–115. The ECJ was also quick to understand the relation between free movement of workers and indirect sex-based discrimination; see already Case 96/80, Jenkins v Kingsgate (ECJ 31 March 1981); cf. Gijzen (2006), p. 69.

  31. 31.

    Of particular importance were Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ L 149/2-50 (1971); Directive 76/207/EEC on non-discrimination based on gender in employment, OJ L 39/40-42 (1976); and Directive 79/9/EEC on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, OJ L 6/24-25 (1979). See also Xenidis (2019), p. 4; Dubout (2017), p. 66; and, for a full account of relevant sources, Ellis and Watson (2012), pp. 13 ff.

  32. 32.

    See e.g. Haverkort-Speekenbrink (2012); Ellis and Watson (2012), p. 151 ff.

  33. 33.

    See further e.g. Haverkort-Speekenbrink (2012); Schiek (2007); Tobler (2005); Gerards (2005).

  34. 34.

    E.g. Möschel (2017); Gerards (2013a).

  35. 35.

    Gerards (2013a). See expressly e.g. Application no. 8777/79, Rasmussen v Denmark (ECtHR 28 November 1984), para. 34.

  36. 36.

    On the application and meaning of the very weighty reasons test, see Gerards (2017b). On the grounds of discrimination, see also e.g. Arnardóttir (2014).

  37. 37.

    See in particular Application nos. 9214/80, 9473/81 and 9474/81, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v the United Kingdom (ECtHR 28 May 1985), para. 85. The Court also showed reluctance to accept the notion and the ECJ’s approach in Application no. 24746/94, Hugh Jordan v the United Kingdom (ECtHR 4 May 2001).

  38. 38.

    See in particular Application no. 17209/02, Zarb Adami v Turkey (ECtHR 20 June 2006); Application no. 58641/00, Hoogendijk v the Netherlands (ECtHR 6 January 2005) (dec.).

  39. 39.

    Application no. 57325/00, D.H. and Others v the Czech Republic (ECtHR 13 November 2007). See also e.g. Möschel (2017), p. 124.

  40. 40.

    See for a few examples Application no. 32526/05, Sampanis and Others v Greece (ECtHR 5 June 2008); Application no. 33401/02, Opuz v Turkey (ECtHR 9 June 2009); Application no. 15766/03, Oršuš and Others v Croatia (ECtHR 16 March 2010); Application no. 59608/09, Sampani and Others v Greece (ECtHR 11 December 2012); Application no. 11146/11, Horváth and Kiss v Hungary (ECtHR 29 January 2013); Application no. 7973/10, Lavida and Others v Greece (ECtHR 30 May 2013); Application no. 7186/09, Di Trizio v Switzerland (ECtHR 2 February 2016).

  41. 41.

    See e.g. Application no. 66686/09, Manenc v France (ECtHR 21 September 2010) (dec.) (in which the Court did not want to recognise an indirect discrimination based on sexual orientation in a case concerning different rights for spouses and unmarried life partners); Application no. 56328/07, Bah v the United Kingdom (ECtHR 27 September 2011) (in which the Court did not further investigate the applicant’s statement that the case disclosed a structural discrimination in the domestic housing legislation); Application no. 77180/11, Leonov v Russia (ECtHR 10 April 2018) and Application no. 23608/16, Petrov and X. v Russia (ECtHR 23 October 2018) (in which the Court did not want to investigate the applicants’ statement that in Russia, a structural situation of discrimination against men existed in relation to granting residence rights).

  42. 42.

    See e.g. Application no. 55164/08, A. v Croatia (ECtHR 14 October 2010), paras. 100–104; Application no. 41237/14, Talpis v Italy (ECtHR 3 March 2017), para. 145; Application no. 49645/14, Balsan v Romania (ECtHR 23 May 2017), paras. 79 and 83.

  43. 43.

    Case C-668/15, Jyske Finans v Ligebehandlingsnævnet (ECJ 6 April 2017); Case C-457/17, Maniero v Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes e.V. (ECJ 15 November 2018). See further e.g. Atrey (2018); Farkas (2018).

  44. 44.

    Jyske Finans, para. 31.

  45. 45.

    Jyske Finans, para. 33.

  46. 46.

    For criticism of this new approach, see in particular Atrey (2018), section 5; Ward (2018), pp. 48–49.

  47. 47.

    See also e.g. Möschel (2017); Atrey (2018); Schlüter (2016). For a brief comparison, see Farkas (2018), p. 24.

  48. 48.

    Application no. 38590/10, Biao v Denmark (ECtHR 24 May 2016).

  49. 49.

    Biao, para. 98.

  50. 50.

    Biao, paras. 112–113.

  51. 51.

    Cf. Atrey (2018).

  52. 52.

    Biao, para. 110.

  53. 53.

    See also, however, Loenen and Vickers (2015), who explain that there also may be convergence visible in this field, in particular where both European Courts appear to leave a wide margin of appreciation to national authorities in making choices in relation to regulating religious expressions in the workplace.

  54. 54.

    Case C-157/15, Achbita v G4S (ECJ 14 March 2017).

  55. 55.

    Achbita/G4S, para. 15.

  56. 56.

    Achbita/G4S, para. 16.

  57. 57.

    Achbita/G4S, para. 30.

  58. 58.

    See in more detail Bell (2017), p. 791.

  59. 59.

    For criticism of the indirect discrimination approach taken in Achbita/G4S case, see e.g. Brems (2017); Loenen (2017); Spaventa (2017). The approach was received more favourably by Bell (2017), p. 792.

  60. 60.

    See e.g. Application no. 48420/10, Eweida and Others v the United Kingdom (ECtHR 15 January 2013), para. 92; Application no. 43835/11, S.A.S. v France (ECtHR 1 July 2014); Application no. 64846/11, Ebrahimian v France (ECtHR 26 November 2015); Application no. 3413/09, Lachiri v Belgium (ECtHR 18 September 2019). See also Loenen (2009), p. 325.

  61. 61.

    See also Howard (2018), Brems (2017). This is the more interesting because the ECJ has taken a more flexible approach in other cases; see Haverkort-Speekenbrink (2012), p. 52.

  62. 62.

    Loenen and Vickers (2015), p. 170; Haverkort-Speekenbrink (2012), p. 79. The ECJ has been said to be more lenient towards interferences by the EU institutions than by member states or private parties; cf. e.g. Weiß (2017), p. 73. An earlier case-law analysis has shown, however, that the main distinction here is between measures that affect or promote free trade and the internal market (very strict review), or between measures where there is or is not a strong element of discretion involved in decision-making; see Gerards (2011), p. 91 ff. (also showing that in fundamental rights cases, the strictness of review may vary depending on the importance of the fundamental rights element at stake; see 100–101).

  63. 63.

    See e.g. Case C-396/17, Leitner v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol (ECJ 8 May 2019), para. 43; Case C-417/13, Starjakob v ÖBB Personenverkehr AG (ECJ 28 January 2015), para. 36. Further e.g. Gijzen (2006), p. 94; Gerards (2005), p. 276.

  64. 64.

    The ECJ has continued to do so based on the Charter, also in cases unrelated to discrimination; for some examples, see Case C-92/09 and Case C-93/09, Schecke v Land Hessen (ECJ 9 November 2010), para. 78; Case C-291/12, Schwartz v Stadt Bochum (ECJ 17 October 2013), paras. 47–63; Case C-293/12 and Case C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland v Minister for Communications (ECJ 8 April 2014).

  65. 65.

    For this terminology, see Gerards (2013b). A major role traditionally has also been played by these two tests in relation to free movement cases; see e.g. Petursson (2014), p. 137 and, with further references 148 ff.

  66. 66.

    E.g. Greer et al. (2018), p. 317; Petursson (2014), pp. 312–314; see also already Jans (2000). Specifically in relation to equal treatment cases, see Tobler (2005), p. 301 and Haverkort-Speekenbrink (2012), p. 77.

  67. 67.

    This is different in some of the more recent cases on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as cases concerning data protection or copyrights; see Greer et al. (2018), p. 317; Weiß (2017), p. 75. For some examples, see Case C-345/17, Buivids v Datu valsts inspekcija (ECJ 14 February 2019), para. 64; Case C-201/13, Deckmyn v Vandersteen (ECJ 3 September 2014), para. 27; Case C-468/10, ASNEF v Administración del Estado (ECJ 24 November 2011), para. 43. Even there, however, in preliminary question cases, the final decision is usually left to the national court.

  68. 68.

    Exceptionally, this is different; see in more recent years e.g. Case C-312/17, Surjit Singh Bedi v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ECJ 19 September 2018), para. 68; Case C-414/16, Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e. V. (ECJ 17 April 2018), paras. 52-53; Case C-83/14, CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (ECJ 16 July 2015), para. 123.

  69. 69.

    See also Weiß (2017), pp. 71–72.

  70. 70.

    Application no. 14038/88, Soering v the United Kingdom (ECtHR 7 July 1989), para. 89. See also Gerards (2019), p. 229; Lavrysen (2018), p. 316; Mowbray (2010).

  71. 71.

    See further Gerards (2019), pp. 229 ff.; for further analyses, see also e.g. Mowbray (2010); Greer (2004).

  72. 72.

    See in particular Gerards (2013b), pp. 467–468.

  73. 73.

    See further Gerards (2017b).

  74. 74.

    Cf. also Loenen and Vickers (2015), p. 169.

  75. 75.

    Case C-157/15, Achbita v G4S (ECJ 14 March 2017). See Sect. 2.3.

  76. 76.

    Application no. 48420/10 and others, Eweida and Others v the United Kingdom (ECtHR 15 January 2013).

  77. 77.

    Eweida, para. 94.

  78. 78.

    As mentioned, this is a very common approach; indeed, as Mowbray has remarked (2010), p. 290, the ECtHR even developed its principle of proportionality in the context of the non-discrimination principle.

  79. 79.

    Cf. Brems (2017).

  80. 80.

    Case C-157/15, Achbita v G4S (ECJ 14 March 2017). See also Bell (2017), p. 794.

  81. 81.

    Achbita/G4S, para. 38.

  82. 82.

    Achbita/G4S, para. 39.

  83. 83.

    Achbita/G4S, para. 40.

  84. 84.

    Achbita/G4S, para. 42.

  85. 85.

    Achbita/G4S, para. 39.

  86. 86.

    For these examples, see Gerards (2007), p. 163.

  87. 87.

    Gerards (2007), p. 169.

  88. 88.

    See further e.g. Xenidis (2019), p. 16; McCrudden (2016); Connor (2010); Waddington (2009).

  89. 89.

    Case C-303/06, Coleman v Attridge Law (ECJ 17 July 2008).

  90. 90.

    Coleman, para. 50.

  91. 91.

    Coleman, para. 51.

  92. 92.

    Coleman, para. 56.

  93. 93.

    Case C-83/14, CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (ECJ 16 July 2015). See also e.g. Xenidis (2019), p. 16; Howard (2018), section II.a; Lahuerta (2016), p. 809.

  94. 94.

    Xenidis (2019), p. 16.

  95. 95.

    Application no. 23682/13, Guberina v Croatia (EctHR 22 March 2016).

  96. 96.

    Guberina, para. 77.

  97. 97.

    Guberina, para. 78. The ECtHR repeated this holding in Application no. 25536/14, Škorjanec v Croatia (ECtHR 28 March 2017), para. 56 and Application no. 65550/13, Belli and Arquier-Martinez v Switzerland (ECtHR 11 December 2018), para. 97.

  98. 98.

    Application no. 55762/00 and 55974/00, Timishev v Russia (ECtHR 13 December 2005), para. 54.

  99. 99.

    See e.g. Application no. 25536/14, Škorjanec v Croatia (ECtHR 28 March 2017), para. 56.

  100. 100.

    Although Lahuerta has argued that the CHEZ case, discussed above, could be seen as an example of discrimination by assumption (and thereby a recognition of that concept); Lahuerta (2016), pp. 810–811. As mentioned above, however, the situation can perhaps better by regarded as an example of discrimination by association with the Roma-population.

  101. 101.

    Case C-354/13, FOA v KL (ECJ 18 December 2014).

  102. 102.

    Kaltoft, paras. 33–40 and 51.

  103. 103.

    Kaltoft, para. 60.

  104. 104.

    Cf. L. Waddington in her case-note to the Kaltoft case, European Human Rights Cases 2015/66, paras. 11–14.

  105. 105.

    As Lahuerta has argued, however, the ECJ may also implicitly recognise the concept; in her view, the ECJ did so in the CHEZ case discussed above; see Lahuerta (2016), pp. 810–811.

  106. 106.

    Danisi (2017), p. 198; Koffeman (2015), p. 608; Wintemute (2015), p. 193; Van der Sloot (2014), pp. 402 ff.

  107. 107.

    See in particular Application no. 30141/04, Schalk and Kopf v Austria (ECtHR 24 June 2010), paras. 54–64; confirmed in e.g. Application no. 18766/11 and 36030/11, Oliari and Others v Italy (ECtHR 21 July 2015), paras. 189–194 and Application no. 40183/07, Chapin and Charpentier v France (ECtHR 9 June 2016), paras. 48–52. See further e.g. Dondoli (2018), p. 7; Danisi (2017), p. 203; Koffeman (2015), p. 351.

  108. 108.

    See in particular Application no. 18766/11 and 36030/11, Oliari and Others v Italy (ECtHR 21 July 2015), where the ECtHR held that Italy had not met its obligations under the Convention by not providing for any sound framework to recognize and protect same-sex unions (paras. 165–185). See also e.g. Dondoli (2018), p. 7 and, in detail, Koffeman (2015), pp. 365 ff.

  109. 109.

    See e.g. Application no. 19010/07, X. and Others v Austria (ECtHR 19 February 2013); Application no. 29381/09 and 32684/09, Vallianatos and Others v Greece (ECtHR 7 November 2013); Application no. 68453/13, Pajić v Croatia (ECtHR 23 February 2016). See critically on the pace of these developments Danisi (2017), p. 212.

  110. 110.

    Application no. 51362/09, Taddeucci and McCall v Italy (ECtHR 30 June 2016). See further Dondoli (2018), p. 13 ff.

  111. 111.

    Taddeucci and McCall, para. 83.

  112. 112.

    Taddeucci and McCall, para. 97.

  113. 113.

    Taddeucci and McCall, para. 96.

  114. 114.

    Taddeucci and McCall, para. 98.

  115. 115.

    Application no. 26431/12 and others, Orlandi and Others v Italy (ECtHR 14 December 2017).

  116. 116.

    Orlandi, para. 199.

  117. 117.

    See also Dondoli (2018). The ECtHR has been criticised, however, for taking an approach that does not sufficiently identify the real ground of discrimination, that does not sufficiently acknowledge the possibilities of indirect discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that is too much focussed on the views and opinions prevalent in the European States; see Danisi (2017), pp. 214 ff.

  118. 118.

    Bell (2002), p. 97. In more detail, see Koffeman (2015), pp. 411 ff.; Tobler (2015), Wintemute (2015), pp. 179 ff.

  119. 119.

    Case 267/06, Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen (ECJ 1 April 2008).

  120. 120.

    Maruko, para. 67.

  121. 121.

    Maruko, paras. 67–69.

  122. 122.

    Maruko, para. 71.

  123. 123.

    Maruko, para. 72.

  124. 124.

    Maruko, para. 72.

  125. 125.

    The ECJ repeated the main part of its analysis in Maruko in the subsequent Römer case, Case C-147/08, Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (ECJ 10 May 2011), but there, it provided a few more clues as to the comparability assessment to be made by the national court—see in particular paras. 45–52 and see Wintemute (2015), p. 186.

  126. 126.

    Case C-267/12, Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres (ECJ 12 December 2013), paras. 34–43; see also Danisi (2017), p. 213; Koffeman (2015), p. 423.

  127. 127.

    Case C-673/16, Coman v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări (ECJ 5 June 2018).

  128. 128.

    Coman, para. 37.

  129. 129.

    Coman, paras. 36 and 43–46.

  130. 130.

    See e.g. Tryfonidou (2018), Beury (2018). Both also comment on whether the judgment really is far-reaching, or perhaps still rather narrow in its scope; see also Sumner (2018).

  131. 131.

    Or, as Wintemute has put it, the ECtHR has shown more ‘bravery’ than the ECJ has done; Wintemute (2015), p. 192.

  132. 132.

    See further Wintemute (2015), p. 192.

  133. 133.

    Cf. Greer et al. (2018), pp. 296–298; Beijer (2017), p. 145 ff.; Dubout (2017), pp. 69–71; Wintemute (2015), p. 192.

  134. 134.

    See Gerards (2013a), p. 104; Edel (2010), p. 86; O’Connell (2009), p. 222.

  135. 135.

    For the situation in EU law, see further e.g. Xenidis (2019), pp. 37 ff.

  136. 136.

    On this, see also e.g. Besson (2008).

References

  • Arnardóttir, Oddny Mjöll. 2003. Equality and Non-Discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Non-Discrimination in International and European Law: Towards Substantive Models. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Menneskerettigheter 25: 140–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnardóttir, Oddný Mjöll. 2013. Discrimination as a Magnifying Lens: Scope and Ambit Under Article 14 and Protocol No. 12. In Shaping Rights in the ECHR. The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights, ed. Eva Brems and Janneke Gerards, 330–349. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. The Differences That Make a Difference: Recent Developments on the Discrimination Grounds and the Margin of Appreciation Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 14: 647–670.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Aaron. 2009. The Enjoyment of Rights and Freedoms: A New Conception of the “Ambit” Under Article 14 ECHR. Modern Law Review 69: 714–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, Catherine. 1996. The Economic Objectives of Article 119. In Sex Equality Law in the European Union, ed. Tamara K. Hervey and David O’Keeffe, 673–679. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beijer, Malu. 2017. The Limits of Fundamental Rights Protection by the EU. The Scope for the Development of Positive Obligations. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belavusau, Uladzislau, and Kristin Henrard. 2018. EU Anti-Discrimination Law Beyond Gender. Oxford: Hart/Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. The Principle of Equal Treatment: Widening and Deepening. In The Evolution of EU Law, ed. Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca, 611–639. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Leaving Religion at the Door? The European Court of Justice and Religious Symbols in the Workplace. Human Rights Law Review 17: 784–796. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngx026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besson, Samantha. 2008. Gender Discrimination Under EU and ECHR Law: Never Shall the Twain Meet? Human Rights Law Review 8: 647–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beury, Manon. 2018. The CJEU’s Judgment in Coman: A Small Step for the Recognition of Same-Sex Couples Underlying European Divides Over LGBT Rights. Strasbourg Observers Blog. https://strasbourgobservers.com/2018/07/24/the-cjeus-judgment-in-coman-a-small-step-for-the-recognition-of-same-sex-couples-underlying-european-divides-over-lgbt-rights/.

  • Brems, Eva. 2017. European Court of Justice Allows Bans on Religious Dress in the Workplace. IACL-AIDC Blog. https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/test-3/2018/5/26/analysis-european-court-of-justice-allows-bans-on-religious-dress-in-the-workplace.

  • Cartabia, Marta. 2011. The European Court of Human Rights: Judging Nondiscrimination. International Journal of Constitutional Law 9: 808–814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, Tim. 2010. Discrimination by Association: A Step in the Right Direction. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 32: 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649061003675881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppel, Jason, and Aidan O’Neill. 1992. The European Court of Justice: Taking Rights Seriously? Common Market Law Review 29: 669–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danisi, Carmelo. 2011. How Far Can the European Court of Human Rights Go in the Fight Against Discrimination? Defining New Standards in Its Nondiscrimination Jurisprudence. International Journal of Constitutional Law 9: 793–807.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Contextualising Discrimination: Towards a New Approach for Sexual Minorities Under the ECHR? In The Principle of Discrimination and the European Convention of Human Rights, ed. Marco Balboni, 197–232. Naples: Editoriale Scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dauses, Manfred A. 1985. The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the Community Legal Order. European Law Review 10: 398–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Búrca, Grainne. 2011. The Evolution of EU Human Rights Law. In The Evolution of EU Law, ed. Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca, 465–497. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013a. After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: The Court of Justice as a Human Rights Adjudicator? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 20: 168–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013b. Europe’s Raison d’Etre. NYU Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No 13–09. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2224310.

  • De Witte, Bruno. 1999. The Past and Future Role of the European Court of Justice in the Protection of Human Rights. In The EU and Human Rights, ed. Philip Alston, 859–897. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. The Use of the ECHR and Convention Case-Law by the European Court of Justice. In Human Rights Protection in the European Legal Order: The Interaction Between the European and the National Courts, ed. Patricia Popelier, Catherine Van de Heyning, and Piet Van Nuffel, 17–34. Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dondoli, Giulia. 2018. An Overnight Success a Decade in the Making: Indirect Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 18: 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas-Scott, Sinoaidh. 2011. The European Union and Human Rights After the Treaty of Lisbon. Human Rights Law Review 11: 645–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights After Lisbon. In The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU After Lisbon, ed. Sybe de Vries, Ulf Bernitz, and Stephen Weatherill, 153–179. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubout, Edouard. 2017. Une approche comparative du principe de non-discrimination dans la cadre européen: Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et droit de l’Union européenne. In The Principle of Discrimination and the European Convention of Human Rights, ed. Marco Balboni, 63–120. Naples: Editoriale Scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edel, Frédéric. 2010. The Prohibition of Discrimination Under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, Evelyn, and Philippa Watson. 2012. EU Anti-Discrimination Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, Lilla. 2018. Throwing the Babies Out with the Bathwater: The CJEU, Xenophobia and Equality Bodies After Jyske Finans. European Equality Law Review 2018 (1): 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garben, Sacha. 2017. The Constitutional (im)Balance Between “The Market” and “The Social” in the European Union. European Constitutional Law Review 13: 23–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerards, Janneke H. 2005. Judicial Review in Equal Treatment Cases. Leiden/Bosten: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Grounds of Discrimination. In Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Non-Discrimination Law, ed. Mark Bell and Dagmar Schiek, 33–84. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Pluralism, Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine. European Law Journal 17: 80–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013a. The Discrimination Grounds of Article 14 ECHR. Human Rights Law Review 13: 99–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013b. How to Improve the Necessity Test of the European Court of Human Rights? International Journal of Constitutional Law 11: 466–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Who Decides on Fundamental Rights Issues in Europe? – Toward a Mechanism to Coordinate the Roles of the National Courts, the ECJ and the ECtHR. In Five Years Legally Binding EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - What Is the State of Play in the Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU? ed. Stephen Weatherill and Sybe de Vries, 47–74. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017a. The Paradox of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights’ Transformative Power. Kutafin University Law Review 4: 315–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017b. The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine, the Very Weighty Reasons Test and Grounds of Discrimination’. In The Principle of Discrimination and the European Convention of Human Rights, ed. Marco Balboni, 27–62. Naples: Editoriale Scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Chapter 30. Prohibition of Discrimination. In Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, ed. Pieter Van Dijk, Fried Van Hoof, Arjen Van Rijn, and Leo Zwaak, 997–1028. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerards, Janneke H. 2019. General Principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gijzen, Marianne H.S. 2006. Selected Issues in Equal Treatment Law: A Multi-Layered Comparison of European, English and Dutch Law. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer, Steven. 2004. “Balancing” and the European Court of Human Rights: A Contribution to the Habermas-Alexy Debate. Cambridge Law Journal 63: 412–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer, Steven, Janneke H. Gerards, and Rose Slowe. 2018. Human Rights in the Council of Europe and the European Union. Achievements, Trends and Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groussot, Xavier, Nina L. Arold Lorenz, and Gunnar Thor Petursson. 2016. The Paradox of Human Rights Protection: Two Courts, One Goal? In Shifting Centres of Gravity in Human Rights Protection: Rethinking Relations Between the ECHR, EU and National Legal Orders, ed. Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir and Antoine Buyse, 119–125. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haverkort-Speekenbrink, Sarah. 2012. European Non-Discrimination Law. A Comparison of EU Law and the ECHR in the Field of Non-Discrimination and Freedom of Religion in Public Employment with an Emphasis on the Islamic Headscarf Issue. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, Erica. 2018. EU Anti-Discrimination Law: Has the CJEU Stopped Moving Forward? International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 18: 60–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imamović, Šejla. 2018. Resolving Conflicts in European Fundamental Rights Protection. National and European Courts’ Perspectives. Maastricht: Dissertation Maastricht University and Hasselt University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jans, Jan H. 2000. Proportionality Revisited. Legal Issues of European Integration 27: 239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julicher, Manon, et al. 2019. Protection of the EU Charter for Private Legal Entities and Public Authorities? The Personal Scope of Fundamental Rights within Europe Compared. Utrecht Law Review 15: 1–25. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koffeman, Nelleke R. 2015. Morally Sensitive Issues and Cross-Border Movement in the EU. The Cases of Reproductive Matters and Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships. Cambridge: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krommendijk, Jasper. 2015. The Use of ECtHR Case Law by the Court of Justice of the European Union: The View of Luxembourg Insiders. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 22: 812–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuijer, Martin. 2018. The Challenging Relationship Between the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Legal Order: Consequences of a Delayed Accession. International Journal of Human Rights.https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2018.1535433.

  • Lahuerta, Sara B. 2016. Ethnic Discrimination, Discrimination by Association and the Roma community: CHEZ. Common Market Law Review 53: 797–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrysen, Laurens. 2018. Chapter 4. System of Restrictions. In Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, ed. Pieter Van Dijk, Fried Van Hoof, Arjen Van Rijn, and Leo Zwaak, 307–330. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, Koen. 2013. How the ECJ Thinks: A Study on Judicial Legitimacy. Fordham International Law Journal 36: 1302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lock, Tobias. 2016. The Influence of EU Law on Strasbourg Doctrines. European Law Review 41: 804–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loenen, Titia. 2009. The Headscarf Debate. Approaching the Intersection of Sex, Religion and Race Under the European Convention on Human Rights and EC Equality Law. In European Union Non-Discrimination Law. Comparative Perspectives on Multidimensional Equality Law, ed. Dagmar Schiek and Victoria Chege, 313–328. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. In Search of an EU Approach to Headscarf Bans: Where to Go After Achbita and Bougnaoui? Review of European Administrative Law 10: 47–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loenen, Titia, and Lucy Vickers. 2015. More is Less? Multiple Protection of Human Rights in Europe and the Risks of Erosion of Human Rights Standards. In Fundamental Rights in the EU. A Matter for Two Courts, ed. Sonia Morano-Foadi and Lucy Vickers, 159–177. Oxford: Hart-Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mačkić, Jasmina. 2017. Proving Discriminatory Violence at the European Court of Human Rights. Leiden: Dissertation Leiden University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancini, G. Federico, and David K. Keeling. 1994. Democracy and the European Court of Justice. Modern Law Review 57: 176–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrudden, Christopher. 2016. The New Architecture of EU Equality Law After CHEZ: Did the Court of Justice Reconceptualise Direct and Indirect Discrimination? European Equality Law Review 10: 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morano-Foadi, Sonia, and Lucy Vickers, eds. 2015. Fundamental Rights in the EU. A Matter for Two Courts. Oxford/Portland: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • More, Gillian. 1999. The Principle of Equal Treatment: From Market-Unifier to Fundamental Right? In The Evolution of EC Law, ed. Paul Craig and Grainne De Búrca, 517–552. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morijn, John. 2006. Balancing Fundamental Rights and Common Market Freedoms in Union Law: Schmidberger and Omega in the Light of the European Constitution. European Law Journal 12: 15–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möschel, Mathias. 2017. The Strasbourg Court and Indirect Race Discrimination: Going Beyond the Education Domain. Modern Law Review 80: 110–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowbray, Alastair R. 2010. A Study of the Principle of Fair Balance in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 10: 289–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir, Elise. 2013. The Transformative Function of EU Equality Law. European Review of Private Law 2013: 1231–1254.

    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: 211–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petursson, Gunnar Thor. 2014. The Proportionality Principle as Tool for Disintegration in EU Law – of Balancing and Coherence in the Light of the Fundamental Freedoms. Lund: Dissertation Lund University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poiares Maduro, Louis Miguel. 2007. Interpreting European Law: Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism. European Journal of Legal Studies 1: 137–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, Gerard. 2001. The European Union and the Council of Europe on Human Rights Issues: Twins Separated at Birth. McGill Law Journal 46: 849–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiek, Dagmar. 2007. Indirect Discrimination. In Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Non-Discrimination Law, ed. Mark Bell and Dagmar Schiek, 323–475. Oxford: Hart-Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence Between Member States’ Prerogatives and Citizens’ Autonomy. In The European and the Autonomy of the Member States, ed. Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz and B. Bruno De Witte, 219–258. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlüter, Alix. 2016. Biao v. Denmark: Grand Chamber Ruling on Ethnic Discrimination Might Leave Couples Seeking Family Reunification Worse Off. Strasbourg Observers Blog. https://strasbourgobservers.com/2016/06/13/biao-v-denmark-grand-chamber-ruling-on-ethnic-discrimination-might-leave-couples-seeking-family-reunification-worse-off/.

  • Senden, Hanneke Ceciel K. 2011. Interpretation of Fundamental Rights in a Multilevel Legal System. An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, Joan. 2003. Structure and Substance: Developing a Practical and Effective Prohibition of Discrimination Under the European Convention of Human Rights. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 6: 45–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaventa, Eleanor. 2017. What is the Point of Minimum Harmonization of Fundamental Rights? Some Further Reflections on the Achbita Case. EU Law Analysis Blog. http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/03/what-is-point-of-minimum-harmonization.html.

  • Sumner, Ian. 2018. Groundbreaking Decision or a Tiny Tremor? The Court of Justice Decision in Coman. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Privaatrecht 2018: 469–471.

    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 

  • ———. 2015. Combating Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the European Union. European Equality Law Review 2: 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tryfonidou, Alina. 2018. Free Movement of Same-Sex Spouses within the EU: The ECJ’s Coman Judgment. European Law Blog. https://europeanlawblog.eu/2018/06/19/free-movement-of-same-sex-spouses-within-the-eu-the-ecjs-coman-judgment/.

  • Van de Heyning, Catherine. 2011. Fundamental Rights Lost in Complexity. The Protection of Fundamental Rights Against Violations by the Rulemaker in Converging National and European Legal Systems. Antwerp: Dissertation Antwerp University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sloot, Bart. 2014. Between Fact and Fiction: An Analysis of the Case-Law on Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Child and Family Law Quarterly 26: 397–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, Lisa. 2009. Annotation of Case C-303/06, Coleman. Common Market Law Review 46: 665–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, Angela. 2018. The Impact of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on Anti-Discrimination Law: More a Whimper than a Bang? Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 20: 32–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiß, Wolfgang. 2015. The EU Human Rights Regime Post Lisbon: Turning the CJEU into a Human Rights Court? In Fundamental Rights in the EU. A Matter for Two Courts, ed. Sonia Morano-Foadi and Lucy Vickers, 69–89. Oxford/Portland: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiß, Norman. 2017. Origin and further development. In The Council of Europe. Its Law and Policies, ed. Stefanie Schmahl and Marten Breuer, 3–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wintemute, Robert. 2004. ‘Within the ambit’: How Big is the ‘Gap’ in Article 14 European Convention on Human Rights? European Human Rights Law Review: 366–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. In Extending Human Rights, which European Court is Substantively ’Braver’ and Procedurally ’Fitter’? The Example of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination. In Fundamental Rights in the EU. A Matter for Two Courts, ed. Sonia Morano-Foadi and Lucy Vickers, 179–204. Oxford/Portland: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xenidis, Raphaële. 2019. Transforming EU Equality Law? On Disruptive Narratives and False Dichotomies. Yearbook of European Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yey005.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University, School of Law, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Janneke Gerards

Authors
  1. Janneke Gerards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janneke Gerards .

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

Gerards, J. (2020). Non-Discrimination, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights: Who Takes the Lead?. 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_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_7

  • 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