Abstract
According to the Court’s case-law, a prohibition of discrimination can flow not only from enacted (written) Union law but also from (unwritten) general principles. Faced with the lack, or limited reach, of written non-discrimination law, the Court recognised the existence of two layers of general principles of equality, namely a general principle of equality tout court (i.e. a principle that is not linked to any discrimination ground) and a number of general principles of equality linked to particular discrimination grounds. In the resulting multi-level system, the Mangold line of case-law in particular raises questions not only about the relevance and function of the general principles of equality in the larger system of Union law, but also about the interrelation between the different layers of equality law and the meaning of the prohibition of discrimination on the level of the general principles. The contribution traces the creation through the Court’s case-law of the layered system of equality law and its practical implications.
LLM, Europa Institutes of the Universities of Leiden (The Netherlands) and Basel (Switzerland).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The present contribution is limited to EU law. As was noted already by Steindorff 1965, p. 59 the principle of equality (and thereby also the prohibition of discrimination) has a different face in different legal orders. More recently, Diebold 2011 has written about the high fragmentation of the non-discrimination principle in international economic law.
- 2.
See e.g. Tobler 2011b.
- 3.
According to the Court, the terms ‘non-discrimination’ and ‘equal treatment’ are ‘simply two labels for a single general principle of [Union] law‘; Case C-422/02 P Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH v Council and Commission [2005] ECR I-791, para 33.
- 4.
Case-law beginning with Case C-144/04 Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm [2005] ECR I-9981.
- 5.
See avant la lettre Case C-273/04 Poland v Council [2007] ECR I-8925 (old and new Member States).
- 6.
Joined Cases C-22/08 and C-23/08 Athanasios Vatsouras (C-22/08) and Josif Koupatantze (C-23/08) v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900 [2009] ECR I-4585, para 52.
- 7.
Commission Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ 2000 L 180/22.
- 8.
Commission Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ 2000 L 303/16.
- 9.
Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, OJ 1998 L 14/9.
- 10.
Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, OJ 1999 L 175/43.
- 11.
Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, OJ 1999 L 187/42.
- 12.
Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, OJ 2004 L 16/44.
- 13.
See e.g. in Case C-13/05 Sonia Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA [2006] ECR I-6467 (disability does not include sickness); Case C-310/10 Ministerul Justiţiei şi Libertăţilor Cetăţeneşti v Ştefan Agafiţei and Others, judgment of 7 July 2011, n.y.r. (alleged discrimination against judges is based on a socio-professional category which is not covered by Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78).
- 14.
See e.g. Joined Cases C-63/91 and C-64/91 Sonia Jackson and Patricia Cresswell v Chief Adjudication Officer [1992] ECR I-477 (poverty is not a risk covered by Community social insurance law that prohibits sex discrimination).
- 15.
According to the General Court, these even include the competition rules; Case T-158/99 Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-1, para 147; compare Van Gerven 1971, p. 414 et seq.
- 16.
See e.g. the categorisations by Timmermans 1982, p. 429, and the list by Lenaerts 1991, pp. 39–41. It might be added that non-discrimination provisions are not always immediately recognisable as such. Article 63(1) TFEU is a case in point. It replaces Article 67(1) of the EEC Treaty, which prohibited both ‘restrictions’ on the free movement of capital and ‘discriminations based on the nationality or the place of residence of the parties and the place where the capital is invested’. Whilst Article 40 of the EEA Agreement retains this wording, Article 63(1) TFEU merely mentions restrictions. However, according to the Court these two provisions are ‘substantially identical’; e.g. Case C-10/10 Commission v Austria, judgment of 16 June 2011, n.y.r., para 42.
- 17.
Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Albert Ruckdeschel & Co. and Hansa-Lagerhaus Ströh & Co. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen and Diamalt AG v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe [1977] ECR 1753.
- 18.
Case 48/70 Giorgio Bernardi v European Parliament [1971] ECR 175.
- 19.
Joined Cases 152, 158, 162, 166, 170, 173, 175, 177, 178, 179, 182 and 186/81 W. Ferrario and Others v Commission [1983] ECR 2357.
- 20.
Case 78/63 Rémy Huber v Commission [1964] ECR English special edition 367.
- 21.
Case 1/72 Rita Frilli v Belgian State [1972] ECR 457.
- 22.
Lenaerts 1991, p. 6.
- 23.
Joined Cases 201 and 202/85 Marthe Klensch and others v Secrétaire d'État à l'Agriculture et à la Viticulture [1986] ECR 3477.
- 24.
- 25.
Case 20/71 Luisa Sabbatini, née Bertoni, v Parliament [1972] ECR 345.
- 26.
Case 32/71 Monique Chollet, née Bauduin, v Commission [1972] ECR 363.
- 27.
At the time of the Sabbatini judgment, the Court did not yet interpret the concept of indirect discrimination as including the element of objective justification; Tobler 2005, p. 184 et seq.
- 28.
Case 21/74 Jeanne Airola v Commission [1975] ECR 221.
- 29.
- 30.
Joined Cases 75 and 117/82 C. Razzouk and A. Beydoun v Commission [1984] ECR 1509.
- 31.
Case 130/75 Vivien Prais v Council [1976] ECR 1589.
- 32.
Note that the general principles of equality apply fully to EU personnel not covered by the Staff Regulations; see Case C-485/08 P Claudia Gualtieri v Commission [2010] ECR I-3009.
- 33.
Case 149/77 Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena [1978] ECR 1365 (Defrenne III). In Case 43/75 Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena [1976] ECR 455 (Defrenne II), para 12, the Court had already stated that “the principle of equal pay forms part of the foundations of the Community”.
- 34.
- 35.
Case C-227/04 P Maria-Luise Lindorfer v Council [2007] ECR I-6767.
- 36.
Case C-25/02 Katharina Rinke v Ärztekammer Hamburg [2003] ECR I-8349.
- 37.
- 38.
Case C-147/08 Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, judgment of 10 May 2011, n.y.r.
- 39.
Case C-115/08 Land Oberösterreich v ČEZ as [2009] ECR I-265.
- 40.
Case C-101/08 Audiolux SA e.a v Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA (GBL) and Others and Bertelsmann AG and Others [2009] ECR I-9823.
- 41.
E.g. Bengoetxea 2010, p. 1184. Some commentators point out that one complication lies in the fact that most of the specific provisions at issue concern the relationship between the company and its shareholders, whilst Audiolux concerns the relationship between different shareholders; e.g. Wilsing and Paul 2009, p. 756; Mucciarelli 2010, p. 162 et seq.
- 42.
Having denied the existence of a general principle of equality with regard to minority shareholders, the Court in Audiolux proceeded to examine whether the general principle of equality tout court requires equal treatment of minority shareholders by a shareholder acquiring or strengthening his control of a company. This the Court denied, stating in particular that ‘the general principle of equal treatment cannot in itself either give rise to a particular obligation on the part of the dominant shareholder in favour of the other shareholders or determine the specific situation to which such an obligation relates’ (para 57).
- 43.
Joined Cases 103 and 145/77 Royal Scholten-Honig (Holdings) Limited v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce; Tunnel Refineries Limited v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce [1978] ECR 2037.
- 44.
Case C-220/02 Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich [2004] ECR I-5907.
- 45.
Similarly already Case C-132/92 Birds Eye Walls Ltd. v Friedel M. Roberts [1993] ECR I-5579, para 17; Case C-218/98Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and Others v Régie nationale des usines Renault SA [1999] ECR I-5723, para 16, and Case C-320/00 A. G. Lawrence and Others v Regent Office Care Ltd, Commercial Catering Group and Mitie Secure Services Ltd. [2002] ECR I-7325, para 12.
- 46.
Case C-149/10 Zoi Chatzi v Ipourgos Ikonomikon, judgment of 16 December 2010, n.y.r.
- 47.
E.g. Vierdag 1973, pp. 16–17.
- 48.
Case C-208/09 Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein v Landeshauptmann von Wien, judgment of 22 December 2010, n.y.r.
- 49.
Case C-21/10 Károly Nagy v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal, judgment of 21 July 2011, n.y.r.
- 50.
Case C-447/09 Reinhard Prigge, Michael Fromm, Volker Lambach v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, judgment of 13 September 2011, n.y.r.
- 51.
Joined Cases C-297/10 and C-298/10 Sabine Hennigs (C-297/10) v Eisenbahn-Bundesamt and Land Berlin (C-298/10) v Alexander Mai, judgment of 8 September 2011, n.y.r.
- 52.
Case C-236/09 Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL and Others v Conseil des ministres, judgment of 1 March 2011 (Grand Chamber), n.y.r.
- 53.
See e.g. Tobler 2011a, p. 2051, with further references.
- 54.
Regarding the issue of comparability in Test-Achats, see section “The Elusive Concept of Comparability.”
- 55.
Case C-13/05 Sonia Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA [2006] ECR I-6467 (there is nothing in Union law to which the general principle of equality tout court could be attached in such a manner as to prohibit disadvantageous treatment on the ground of sickness).
- 56.
Case C-427/06 Birgit Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH [2008] ECR I-7245 (there is nothing in Union law to which the general principle of equality with respect to age could be attached where a matter falling within the scope of Directive 2000/78 arises before the end of the period for the implementation of that Directive in the Member States).
- 57.
Case C-224/02 Heikki Antero Pusa v Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö [2004] ECR I-5763.
- 58.
Joined Cases C-502/01 and C-31/02 Silke Gaumain-Cerri v Kaufmännische Krankenkasse - Pflegekasse and Maria Barth v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz [2004] ECR I-6483.
- 59.
Tobler 2005, p. 364 et seq.
- 60.
E.g. Case C-406/04 Gérald De Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi [2006] ECR I-6947.
- 61.
These days, the Court’s case-law deals with discriminations on grounds of nationality by one’s own Member State under the concept of restrictions; see also Mei 2009, p. 280. More generally, differences in treatment other than those on the ground of nationality by the host Member State may amount to restrictions; see e.g. the different tax treatment of dividends received by non-resident and resident pension funds under the law on the free movement of capital in Case C-493/09 Commission v Portugal, judgment of 6 October 2011, n.y.r., para 30. If seen in this manner, it is not necessary to examine all citizenship cases involving different treatment in the light of equality, as appears to be done by e.g. Amadeo 2011.
- 62.
This link has been particularly heavily criticised; e.g. De Mol 2011, p. 126.
- 63.
Tobler 2011b, p. 98 et seq.
- 64.
Case 5-77 Carlo Tedeschi v Denkavit Commerciale s.r.l. [1977] ECR 1555, para 35.
- 65.
See the reference to Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA [1978] ECR 629 in Mangold, para 77.
- 66.
Mangold was the first case to do so. Earlier cases on the horizontal effect of prohibitions of discrimination concerned written law, rather than general principles of equality; e.g. Case 43/75 Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena [1976] ECR 455 (Defrenne II), regarding what is today Article 157(1) TFEU (equal pay for men and women workers), and Case C-281/98 Roman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA [2000] ECR I-4139, regarding Article 45 TFEU (free movement for workers).
- 67.
Other examples of this type of ‘framework’ Directives (though not ‘general framework’ Directives) might be Directive 2000/43 (see Article 1) and Directive 2004/113 (see Article 1); see again Tobler 2011b.
- 68.
Case C-282/10 Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique and Préfet de la région Centre, judgment of 24 January 2012, n.y.r., paras 121–134 of the Advocate General’s opinion.
- 69.
Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ 2003 L 299/9.
- 70.
Whilst the Court called the right to paid annual leave as stated in the Directive ‘a particularly important principle of European Union social law’ (Dominguez, para 16), it discussed neither the existence of a general principle on this issue nor its relationship with the Directive and with Article 31(2) of the Charter. In the present writer’s analysis, the Mangold approach requires both the existence of a general principle and room for its application under the Tedeschi principle.
- 71.
- 72.
Case C-127/07 Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie et du Développement durable and Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie [2008] ECR I-9895.
- 73.
An early indication that equality may require different (rather than same) treatment can be found in Case 15/57 Compagnie des Hauts Fourneaux de Chasse v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community [1957–1958] ECR 211, p. 230.
- 74.
Case C-253/09 Commission v Hungary, judgment of 1 December 2011, n.y.r. In the seminal Case 13/63 Italy v Commission [1963] ECR 165, the Court in this context referred to ‘discrimination in substance’, as opposed to discrimination in form.
- 75.
In the most recent generation of non-discrimination legislation, where there are legal definitions of discrimination, comparability is only mentioned in the context of direct discrimination. Seen that in the Court’s case-law comparability is also relevant in the context of indirect discrimination, it has been argued that to require it also in the context of indirect discrimination is dogmatically unsound and should be abandoned; Schiek 2007, p. 468 et seq. However, there appears to be no case-law that would confirm such a change in approach.
- 76.
- 77.
Though it should be noted that this does not exclude other elements of comparability; see e.g. Case C-218/98 Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and Others v Régie nationale des usines Renault SA [1999] ECR I-5723 and Case C-19/02 Viktor Hlozek v Roche Austria Gesellschaft mbH [2004] ECR I-11491.
- 78.
E.g. Case C-64/08 Ernst Engelmann, judgment of 9 September 2010, n.y.r., para 34.
- 79.
Prigge, paras 34 and 81. Other examples where objective justification is possible for direct discrimination concern part-time work and fixed-term work under clauses 4 of the relevant Framework Agreements and direct sex discrimination under Article 4(5) of Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, OJ 2004 L 373/37.
- 80.
See Case C-54/07 Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV [2008] ECR I-5187, paras 29–40 (proof), as compared to paras 21–28 (existence of discrimination).
- 81.
Case C-237/94 John O'Flynn v Adjudication Officer [1996] ECR I-2617.
- 82.
Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Council Directive 86/613/EEC, OJ 2010 L 180/1.
- 83.
Case C-303/06 S. Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law [2008] ECR I-5603.
- 84.
E.g. Case C-196/02 Vasiliki Nikoloudi v Organismos Tilepikoinonion Ellados AE [2005] ECR I-1789 and Case C-267/06 Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen [2008] ECR I-1757 as compared to e.g. Case 15/69 Württembergische Milchverwertung-Südmilch AG v Salvatore Ugliola [1969] ECR 363 and Case C-79/99 Julia Schnorbus v Land Hessen [2000] ECR I-10997; see Tobler and Waaldijk 2009, p. 735 et seq.
- 85.
E.g. Bell 2011, p. 626.
- 86.
See Case C-293/06 Deutsche Shell GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg [2008] ECR I-1129, para 28 of Advocate General Sharpston’s opinion. The Court followed her suggestion.
- 87.
In the Court’s case-law, cases involving discrimination through same treatment are comparatively rare; see e.g. Case C-400/02 Gerard Merida v Bundesrepublik Deutschland [2004] ECR I-8471 (taxation of migrant workers); Joined Cases T-437/04 and T-441/04 Holger Standertskjöld-Nordenstam and Jean-Claude Heyraud v Commission [2006] I-A-2-00029, II-A-2-00127 (Union civil servants) and Case C-558/07 The Queen, on the application of S.PC.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd and Hercules Inc. v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs[2009] ECR I-5783 (REACH).
- 88.
See Advocate General Sharpston in her opinion in Lindorfer, para 24.
- 89.
See already Advocate General Capotorti in his opinion in Ruckdeschel, p. 1779.
- 90.
Critical on the Court’s approach to comparability Argalias 2010.
- 91.
Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Christopher Sturgeon, Gabriel Sturgeon and Alana Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (C-402/07); Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v Air France SA (C-432/07) [2009] ECR I-10923.
- 92.
- 93.
Proposal for a Council Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services, COM(2003) 657 fin., pp. 6–9.
- 94.
Tobler 2011a, with further references; see also the Commission’s Guidelines on the application of Council Directive 2004/113/EC to insurance, in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-236/09, OJ 2012 C 11/1.
- 95.
Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, OJ 1979 L 6/24.
- 96.
Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, COM(2008) 426 fin.
- 97.
Joined opinions of Advocate General Van Gerven in Cases C-109/91 Gerardus Cornelis ten Oever v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor het glazenwassers- en schoonmaakbedrijk, C-109/91 Michael Moroni and ColloGmbH, C-110/91 David Neath v Hugh Steeper Ltd. and C-200/91 Coloroll Pension Trustees v James Richard Russel and Others [1993] ECR I-4879, para 34 et seq. This is also the issue behind the US case-law cited by the Advocate General (and by Advocate General Kokott in her opinion in Test-Achats).
- 98.
Case C-177/10 Francisco Javier Rosado Santana v Consejería de Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía, judgment of 8 September 2011, n.y.r.
- 99.
Compare Gerards 2005, pp. 71 and 347.
- 100.
For an illustrative application in the area of free movement for workers, see Advocate General Sharpston’s opinion in Case C-542/09 Commission v The Netherland of 16 February 2012, n.y.r.
- 101.
Tridimas 2006, pp. 84 and 92 et seq.
- 102.
Bell 2011, p. 628.
- 103.
Barnard 2001, p. 970.
- 104.
Baron von Münchhausen: “[…] und fiel nicht weit vom andern Ufer bis an den Hals in den Morast. Hier hätte ich ohnfehlbar umkommen müssen, wenn nicht die Stärke meines eigenen Armes mich an meinem eigenen Haarzopfe, samt dem Pferde, welches ich fest zwischen meine Kniee schloß, wieder herausgezogen hätte.” I wish to thank my colleague Armin Cuyvers from Leiden University for suggesting the use of this metaphor in the present context.
- 105.
Schiek 2012, p. 234.
- 106.
Semmelmann 2011, p. 246.
- 107.
McCrudden and Kountouris 2007, p. 88.
- 108.
See Toth 2000, p. 81, who has argued that “unwritten general principles are by their very nature, entirely unsuitable to afford adequate legal protection in an area like human rights which requires precise, detailed, meticulously drafted rules”; also Wilsing and Paul 2009, p. 756 (in the context of Audiolux), according to whom the general principles by their very nature are different from rules for the approximation of laws, precisely because they are general principles rather than rules for specific situations.
References
Amadeo S (2011) In principio de egualianza e la cittandinanza dell’Unione: il trattamento del cittadino europeo “inattivo”. Il Diritto dell’Unione Europea 59–94
Argalias P (2010) (Case-note on Chatzi). Elliniki Epitheorisi Evropaïkou Dikaiou 583–587
Barnard C (2001) The changing scope of the fundamental principle of equality? McGill Law J 46:955–977
Bell M (2011) The principle of equal treatment: widening and deepening. In: Craig P, De Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 611–639
Bengoetxea J (2010) Case-note on Audiolux. Common Market Law Rev 47:1173–1186
Börner B (1965) Diskriminierungen und Subventionen. In: Zehn Jahre Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, Kölner Schriften zum Europarecht, Heymann, Köln, pp 215–244
De Mol M (2011) The novel approach of the CJEU on the horizontal direct effect of the EU principle of non-discrimination: (unbridled) expansionism of EU law? Maastricht J Eur Comp Law (Special issue: revisiting the principle of equality: new challenges for EU law) 109–135
Diebold NF (2011) Standards of non-discrimination in international economic law. Int Comp Law Quart 60:831–865
Ellis E, Watson P (2012) EU anti-discrimination law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Fredman S (2011) Discrimination law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gerards JH (2005) Judicial review in equal treatment cases. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Holtmaat R (2009) Sexual harassment as sex discrimination: a logical step in the evolution of EU Sex Discrimination Law or a step too far? In: Bulterman M et al. (eds) Views of European law from the Mountain. Liber Amicorum Piet Jan Slot, Kluwer Law International, Austin, pp 27–40
Lenaerts K (1991) L’égalité de traitement de droit communautaire. Un principe unique aux apparences multiples. Cahiers de droit européen 3–41
Lenaerts L, Gutiérrez-Fons JA (2010) The constitutional allocation of powers and general principles of EU law. Common Market Law Rev 47:1629–1669
Massaro L (1976) The nationality of married women and the principle of gender equality in the European economic communities. Columbia J Transnat Law 15:514–537
McCrudden C, Kountouris H(2007) Human rights and European equality law. In: Meenan H (ed) Equality law in an enlarged European Union. Understanding the Article 13 Directives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 73–116
Mei van der A P (2009) EU-burgerschap en de reijkwijdte van het verbod van discriminatie op grond van nationaliteit. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Europees Recht, pp 275–287
Mendes de Leon P (2010) De vulkaan in IJsland en de Sturgeon zaak uit Ijsland leiden tot uitbarstingen. Nederlands Juristenbald pp 19:1218–1225
More GC (1993) “Equal treatment” of the sexes in European Community law: what does “equal” mean? Fem Legal Stud 45–74
Mucciarelli F M (2010) Equal treatment of shareholders and European Union law. Case note on the Decision “Audiolux” of the European Court of Justice. Eur Co Fin Law Rev 158–167
O’Leary S (2011) Applying principles of EU social and employment law in EU staff cases. Eur Law Rev 36:769–797
Pernice I (1979), Der Grundsatz der Gleichbehandlung von Männern und Frauen im Beruf—Soziale Grundrechtspolitik des EuGH mit neuen Akzenten. Europarecht 410–417
Rastrelli G (1979) Principio di non discriminazione e principio di uguaglianza nel Trattato CEE. Diritto comunitario e degli scambi internazionali 18:90–98
Schiek D (2007) Indirect discrimination. In: Schiek D, Waddington L, Bell M (eds) Cases, materials and text on national, supranational and International Non-Discrimination Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Schiek D (2012) Fundamental rights jurisprudence between Member States’ prerogatives and citizens’ autonomy. In: Micklitz H-W, De Witte B (eds) The European Court of Justice and the autonomy of the Member States. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 219–258
Semmelmann C (2011) The general principles of European Union Law in the lights of the public-private distinction. In: Besson S, Levrat N (eds) Les principes en droit européen. Principles in European Law, Schulthess, Geneva, pp 233–255
Steindorff E (1965) Der Gleichheitssatz im Wirtschaftsrecht des Gemeinsamen Marktes. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin
Streil J (1975) Grundrechtsverwirklichung am Beispiel des Grundsatzes der Gleichbehandlung von Mann und Frau. Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift, pp 321–323
Timmermans C (1982) Verboden discriminatie of (geboden) differentiatie. Sociaal-economische wetgeving, pp 427–460
Tobler C (2005) Indirect discrimination. A case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law. Intersentia, Antwerp
Tobler C (2011a) Case C-236/09, Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v Conseil des ministers. Common Market Law Rev 48:2041–2061
Tobler C (2011b) The impact of Non-discrimination Law in developing a general doctrine of enforcement under EU law. In: Ellis E, Benediktsdóttir K (eds) Equality into reality: action for diversity and non-discrimination in Iceland, University of Iceland Press, Reykjavík, pp 67–107
Tobler C, Waaldijk C (2009) Case C-267/06 Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen. Common Market Law Rev 46:723–746
Toth AG (2000) Human rights as general principles of law, in the past and the future. In: Bernitz U, Nergelius J (eds) General principles of European Community law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 73–92
Tridimas T (2006) The general principles of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Van Gerven W (1971) Schets van een Belgisch Economisch Grondslagenrecht. Sociaal Economische Wetgeving 6:404–428
Vierdag E (1973) The concept of discrimination in International law, with special reference to human rights. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague
Westen P (1982) The empty idea of equality. Harvard Law Rev 537–596
Wilsing H-U, Paul CA (2009) Minderheitsaktionär, Gleichbehandlung, Pflichtangebot/”Audiolux”. Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht 755–756
Zuleeg M (1992) Betrachtungen zum Gleichheitssatz im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht. In: Baur JF et al. (eds) Europarecht, Energierecht, Wirtschaftsrecht. Festschrift für Bodo Börner zum 70. Geburtstag. Carl Heymans Verlag KG, Cologne, pp 473–483
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 T.M.C. Asser Instituut
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tobler, C. (2013). The Prohibition of Discrimination in the Union’s Layered System of Equality Law: From Early Staff Cases to the Mangold Approach. In: The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_24
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-896-5
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-897-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
