Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Germany

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comparative Perspectives on the Enforcement and Effectiveness of Antidiscrimination Law

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 28))

Abstract

German antidiscrimination law is not a sealed system: provisions prohibiting discrimination as well as legislative measures aiming at prevention of discrimination can be found all over the legal system.

Court decisions and further references were generally taken into account until 2016. Subsequent legal changes were taken into account until April 2018.

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 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
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.

    For an overview of the legal grounds of antidiscrimination law, see Handbuch “Rechtlicher Diskriminierungsschutz,” of the Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes (2014), p. 32.

  2. 2.

    For a wealth of details developed in decades of vivid jurisdiction, see P. Kirchhof in: Maunz and Dürig (2015), Article 3, para. 72 et seq.; Kischel in: Beck’scher Online-Kommentar GG, 26th edn (2015), Article 3, para. 64 et seq.

  3. 3.

    Disability is referred to in Article 3 para. 3 sentence 2 stating that it is prohibited to disfavor a person because of his disability. Accordingly, it is permissible that a disabled person is favored.

  4. 4.

    Kischel in: Beck’scher Online-Kommentar GG, (2015), Article 3, para. 214. See also Krieger in: Schmidt-Bleibtreu et al. (2014), Art. 3, para. 62.

  5. 5.

    Höfling in: Sachs (2011), Article 1, para. 33; Mahlmann (2013), p. 8.

  6. 6.

    Krieger in: Schmidt-Bleibtreu et al. (2014), Article 3, para. 62; Mahlmann (2013), p. 28.

  7. 7.

    See, for the impact of Article 3 para. 2 GG, the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, official collection (BVerfGE), volume 89, p. 285; for further details, see Grünberger (2013), p. 298; see also Mahlmann (2013), p. 6.

  8. 8.

    English translations of provisions of the AGG in this text are based on the translation of the Federal Antidiscrimination Agency, see http://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/publikationen/AGG/agg_in_englischer_Sprache.pdf;jsessionid=45944B11C2A7836C9B7295CCC40C286C.2_cid322?__blob=publicationFile&v=2, date of last access: 30 January 2016.

  9. 9.

    Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000, implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22); Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16); Directive 2002/73/EC (OJ L 269, 5.10.2002, p. 15 (recasted by: Directive 2006/54/EC of 5 July 2006), on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ L 204 of 26 July 2006, p. 23); and 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 L 373, 21.12.2004, p. 37).

  10. 10.

    For the application on public-law employers, see Section 24 AGG.

  11. 11.

    See Section 12 para. 1 AGG.

  12. 12.

    See Section 13 AGG.

  13. 13.

    See Section 14 AGG.

  14. 14.

    See Section 15 para. 1 AGG.

  15. 15.

    For the scope of application in detail, see Section 2 AGG.

  16. 16.

    For further details, see Section 19 AGG and below in question no. 9.

  17. 17.

    See, for example, the Federal Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities Act (Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz, BGG).

  18. 18.

    See, for example, the Federal Equality Act (Bundesgleichstellungsgesetz) or the Federal Equality Act for Soldiers (Soldatengleichstellungsgesetz, SGleiG).

  19. 19.

    This includes the prohibition of discrimination in the State Constitutions. For an overview of the provisions in States’ constitutions and their differences from the Federal constitution, see Mahlmann (2013), p. 27.

  20. 20.

    For an overview of these stipulations, see question no. 9.

  21. 21.

    For details, see questions no. 2 and no. 6.

  22. 22.

    Mahlmann (2013), p. 103.

  23. 23.

    For the overview, see http://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/publikationen/Rechtsprechungsübersicht/rechtsprechungsuebersicht_zum_antidiskriminierungsrecht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile, date of last access: 30 January 2016.

  24. 24.

    See overview, p. 4 (“ausgewählte Entscheidungen”).

  25. 25.

    Mahlmann (2013), p. 103.

  26. 26.

    However, Section 22 is interpreted relatively strictly. The reversal of the burden of proof is limited to the question of if a case of unequal treatment is based on one of the discriminatory grounds outlawed by the AGG. See Kocher in: Schiek (2007), § 22, para. 10. See also Mahlmann (2013), p. 108/109 emphasising that Section 22 AGG does not apply in (public law) proceedings before administrative courts, as these proceedings are inquisitorial. See also Schnabel, p. 173; Gaier in: Gaier/Wendtland (2006), AGG, p. 66 et seq.

  27. 27.

    For details, see question no. 3.

  28. 28.

    Depending on the nature of the claim, either administrative courts (Verwaltungsgerichte) or ordinary courts have jurisdiction. If administrative courts have jurisdiction, the enforcement of their judgments is stipulated in Section 167 et seq. of the Code for Administrative Court Procedure (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung—VwGO).

  29. 29.

    This applies equally to citizens of other EU Member States. See Hense in: Beck’scher Online-Kommentar (2015), Article 33, para. 21.

  30. 30.

    For more details regarding Article 3 para. 3, see “Introduction.”

  31. 31.

    See “Introduction.”

  32. 32.

    The Implementation Act came into force on 1 April 2016.

  33. 33.

    For details about the enforceability of ADR settlements in German law, see Prütting (2015), p. 157 et seq.

  34. 34.

    This applies mutatis mutandis in the field of administrative procedural law, notably if an individual is discriminated against by an administrative decision or activity.

  35. 35.

    For details see question no. 6.

  36. 36.

    Section 23 AGG implements Article 7 para. 2 Directive 2000/43/EC, Article 9 para. 2 Directive 2000/78/EC, Article 8 para. 3 Directive 2004/113/EC and Article 17 para. 2 Directive 2006/54/EC into German law. See Benecke in: Beck-Online Großkommentar (2015), § 23 AGG, para. 1. Such rights to assist are limited to organisations with the statutory purpose to safeguard the interests of persons or groups facing discrimination for one of the grounds to which the AGG is applicable. The organisation must have at least 75 members or must be an association comprising seven or more organisations.

  37. 37.

    This follows from Section 90 para. 2 ZPO and from Section 67 para. 7 VwGO.

  38. 38.

    Benecke in: Beck-Online Großkommentar (2015), § 23 AGG, para. 12.

  39. 39.

    For details, see Schnabel (2014), p. 141.

  40. 40.

    For details, see Majerski-Pahlen in: Neumann et al. (2010), § 63 SGB IX, para. 1 et seq.; Kossens in: Kossens et al. (2015), § 63 SGB IX, para. 1 et seq.

  41. 41.

    See Dopatka in: Kossens et al. (2015), § 13 BGG, para. 12.

  42. 42.

    Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht—BVerwG), decision of 5 April 2006—9 C 1/05, NVwZ 2006, p. 817.

  43. 43.

    This only applies to enterprises in which the conditions pursuant to Section 1 para. 1 sentence 1 Works Constitution Act are present. Thus, it does not apply to small businesses.

  44. 44.

    See Section 4 Act on Injunctive Relief.

  45. 45.

    OLG Schleswig, Decision of 11 December 2015, BeckRS 2016, 02570; BGH, Decision vom 26 Januray 1983—VIII ZR 342/81, NJW 1983, p. 1320 (p. 1322); Micklitz in: Krüger et al. (2013), § 1 UKlaG, para. 14.

  46. 46.

    See Section 4 Act on Injunctive Relief.

  47. 47.

    Köhler in: Köhler and Bornkamm (2016), § 2 UKlaG, para. 2; OLG Schleswig, decision of 11 December 2015, BeckRS 2016, 02570, para. 27 has left this question unanswered; for the contrary view see Bassenge in Palandt (2015), § 2 UKlaG, para. 4.

  48. 48.

    See Ohly in: Ohly and Sosnitza (2014), § 4 para. 11/80. However, there are no apparent court decisions on this question.

  49. 49.

    See Section 8 Unfair Competition Act (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb—UWG).

  50. 50.

    Benecke in: Beck-Online Großkommentar (2015), § 23 AGG, para. 21; Monen (2008), p. 214.

  51. 51.

    See Section 35 Trade Law (Gewerbeordnung); for details, see Kühn and Klose (2012), p. 1443 (1447); but see Lindner (2008), p. 436.

  52. 52.

    See Overview of selected Court Decisions, published by the Federal Antidiscrimination Agency, http://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/publikationen/Rechtsprechungs%C3%BCbersicht/rechtsprechungsuebersicht_zum_antidiskriminierungsrecht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile, last accessed: 20 February 2016.

  53. 53.

    See Pfeiffer, p. 15 et seq.

  54. 54.

    See Section 25 Federal Equalitiy Act (Bundesgleichstellungsgesetz, BGleiG).

  55. 55.

    This applies mutatis mutandis to men if they are under-represented (Section 8 para. 1 sentence 5 Federal Equality Act).

  56. 56.

    Kocher (2007), § 15 AGG, para. 22; Benecke in: Beck-Online Großkommentar (2017), § 15 AGG, para. 20.

  57. 57.

    For details, see Kocher (2007), § 15 AGG, para. 21 et seq.; Benecke in: Beck-Online Großkommentar (2017), § 15 AGG, para. 21 et seq.

  58. 58.

    Monen (2008), p. 233 et seq. For thoughts on an economic analysis of civil-law-governed antidiscrimination law, see Kirchner (2008), p. 37.

  59. 59.

    The Federal Antidiscrimination Agency lists the following examples of positive measures.

    In the field of labour:

    • Purposeful recruiting methods and scholarships for disadvantaged groups of persons,

    • Implementation of diversity training programmes at companies,

    • In-plant agreements to promote diversity within the workforce,

    • Preferential employment of disadvantaged groups of persons and management by objectives,

    • Flexible quota arrangements.

    In the field of goods and services:

    • Special conditions of soft loans to disadvantaged groups of persons,

    • Quotas of allocation of housing preferably to disadvantaged persons,

    • Special opening hours in public baths.

    See www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/publikationen/Factsheets/factsheet_engl_positive_massnahmen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile, last accessed: 28 February 2016.

  60. 60.

    Roloff in: Beck’scher Online-Kommentar Arbeitsrecht (2015), 38. edition, § 5 AGG, para. 3.

  61. 61.

    This applies mutatis mutandis to men, if they are under-represented (Section 8 para. 1 sentence 5 Federal Equality Act).

  62. 62.

    ECJ, Decision of 11 November 1997, C-409/95, para. 30.

  63. 63.

    ECJ, Decision of 11 November 1997, C-409/95, para. 29.

  64. 64.

    ECJ, Decision of 11 November 1997, C-409/95, para. 23.

  65. 65.

    ECJ, Decision of 11 November 1997, C-409/95, para. 33.

  66. 66.

    Provided that the stock corporation falls under the scope of the Co-Determination Act.

  67. 67.

    Grünberger/Block in: Beck-Online Großkommentar (2015), § 5 AGG, para. 63.

  68. 68.

    By contrast, precise specifications regarding the remedies are rare, but do exist. According to Article 6 para. 2 Directive 2002/73/EC Member States shall “ensure real and effective compensation or reparation as the Member States so determine for the loss and damage sustained by a person injured as a result of discrimination.” See Stoffels (2009), p. 204 (205); see also Busche (2008), p. 159 (163).

  69. 69.

    See question no. 13.

  70. 70.

    Stoffels (2009), p. 204 (205). See also question no. 2.

  71. 71.

    Stoffels (2009), p. 204 (207).

  72. 72.

    This possibility of exculpation is regarded to be contrary to the European Directives, see Roloff in: Beck’scher Online-Kommentar, § 15 AGG, para. 2; Stoffels (2009), p. 204 (207). Thus, some authors are of the opinion that national courts shall disapply Section 15 para. 1 sentence 2 AGG, see Schlachter in: Müller-Glöge et al. (2016), § 15 AGG, para. 6. For immaterial losses, Section 15 para. 3 sets forth a liability privilege if the discrimination arises out of the application of collective bargaining agreements. In such cases, the employer shall be held liable if she or he acted with intent or with gross negligence. For details, see Benecke in: Beck-Online Großkommentar (2015), § 15 AGG, para. 68 et seq.

  73. 73.

    See Section 24 AGG.

  74. 74.

    According to Article 33 para. 2 GG, every German shall be equally eligible for any public office according to his aptitude, qualifications and professional achievements. See also question no. 2.

  75. 75.

    In favor of an obligation to close a contract: Grünberger/Block in: Beck-Online Großkommentar (2015), § 21 AGG, para. 38 et seq.; Grünberger (2013), S. 729 (with further references). See also Gaier in: Gaier/Wendtland (2006), p. 104 et seq.; see also Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 53 (p. 64 et seq.) giving an overview on European legal systems.

  76. 76.

    Section 21 para. 1 Sentence 2 AGG.

  77. 77.

    Lingemann in Prütting et al. (2015), § 21 AGG, para. 4.

  78. 78.

    Grünberger/Block in: Beck-Online Großkommentar, § 21 AGG, para. 98 et seq.

  79. 79.

    See Section 27 para. 2 AGG. Between August 2006 and December 2010, the Agency had 7875 “contacts concerning the AGG.” See Mahlmann, p. 114.

  80. 80.

    See Section 27 AGG.

  81. 81.

    See Section 28 para. 1 AGG.

  82. 82.

    See Section 28 para. 2 AGG.

  83. 83.

    The Commissioner is assisted by fulltime co-workers at his disposal who support him in fulfilling his tasks. See http://www.behindertenbeauftragte.de/EN/Englisch.html?nn=2950120#doc2967342bodyText2, date of last access: 18 February 2016.

  84. 84.

    See Section 15 BGG.

  85. 85.

    http://www.behindertenbeauftragte.de/EN/Englisch.html?nn=2950120#doc2967342bodyText2, date of last access: 18 February 2016.

  86. 86.

    http://www.behindertenbeauftragte.de/EN/Englisch.html?nn=2950120#doc2967342bodyText2, date of last access: 18 February 2016.

  87. 87.

    See for example Bavarian Act on the Equality of Women and Men (Bayerisches Gleichstellungsgesetz, BayGlG).

  88. 88.

    Benecke in: Beck-Online Großkommentar (2015), § 23 AGG, para. 20; Section 23 para. 2 AGG; for details, see question no. 3.

  89. 89.

    For further details, see question no. 3.

  90. 90.

    See, for example, the statements of the German Employers Association: http://webarchiv.bundestag.de/archive/2005/0825/parlament/gremien15/a12/Oeffentliche_Sitzungen/20050307/18.pdf, last access to website: 21 February 2016; the statements of the Federal Association of German Associations for Commercial Agencies and Distribution (CDH) of 22 May 2006, http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Bibliothek/Gesetzesmaterialien/16_wp/antidiskrg/stellung_cdh_24_mai_06.pdf?__blob=publicationFile, last access to website: 21 February 2016; the statements of the German Chamber of Commerce (DIHK), see http://webarchiv.bundestag.de/archive/2005/0825/parlament/gremien15/a12/Oeffentliche_Sitzungen/20050307/5.pdf, last access to website: 22 February 2016.

  91. 91.

    Statement of the German Employers Association (BDA), see http://webarchiv.bundestag.de/archive/2005/0825/parlament/gremien15/a12/Oeffentliche_Sitzungen/20050307/18.pdf, last access to website: 21 February 2016; see also Statement of the German Chamber of Commerce (DIHK), http://webarchiv.bundestag.de/archive/2005/0825/parlament/gremien15/a12/Oeffentliche_Sitzungen/20050307/5.pdf, last access to website: 22 February 2016.

  92. 92.

    See, for example, Säcker (2004), pp. 16 and 19; Pfeiffer, p. 15 et seq., Monen (2008), p. 228; Adomeit (2002), p. 1622. But see Schmidt-Kessel (2006), pp. 53 and 71 emphasising as the result of a comparative law overview that the relevance of general discrimination prohibitions in civil law is rather low.

  93. 93.

    For details, see “Introduction.”

  94. 94.

    For further details, see “Introduction” and questions nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6.

  95. 95.

    Schmidt-Kessel and Kramme in: Prütting et al. (2015), § 242, para. 16.

  96. 96.

    Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht—BAG), decision of 14 March 1989, BAG, AP § 611a BGB Nr. 5.

  97. 97.

    Federal Labour Court, decision of 24 September 2009, NJW 2010, p. 554.

  98. 98.

    In favor of social status as a ground of discrimination: Klose, p. 16, http://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/lb_ads/materialien/diskriminierung/ladg.pdf?start&ts=1310721827&file=ladg.pdf, date of last access: 17 January 2016.

  99. 99.

    See Schnabel (2014), p. 141.

  100. 100.

    See question no. 8.

  101. 101.

    See Schnabel (2014), p. 141 emphasising that the scope of Section 22 is limited to cases falling under the AGG.

  102. 102.

    Disability is referred to in Article 3 para. 3 sentence 2, stating that it is prohibited to disfavor a person because of his disability. Accordingly, it is permissible that a disabled person is favored.

  103. 103.

    Kischel in: Beck’scher Online-Kommentar GG, 26th edn (2015), Art. 3, para. 214.

  104. 104.

    In this context, see the legislation in the field of disability law (question no. 9).

  105. 105.

    See Mahlmann, p. 29.

  106. 106.

    See question no. 2.

  107. 107.

    See, Roth (2013), p. 637 (p. 641). Furthermore, financially weak plaintiffs are entitled to assistance with court costs in Section 114 et seq. Civil Procedural Code.

  108. 108.

    See question no. 3.

  109. 109.

    For the possible discriminatory effect of such measures, see question no. 5.

  110. 110.

    Such understanding is based on the statement regarding the draft legislation introducing the 30% quota: The Federal Government argues that there is no good reason, such as a shortage of suitable female candidates, which could explain the under-representation of women in top positions in the German economy (BR-Drs. 636/14, p. 1 et seq.). Thus, the under-representation might be explained with discriminatory staffing choices for positions that would qualify for a mandate in a supervisory body, enabled by a weak enforcement of antidiscrimination law.

  111. 111.

    See Section 253 Civil Code.

  112. 112.

    As examples of administrative enforcement regimes, see Zahumenský, p. 82, describing the purviews of the Employment offices, Labour Inspectorates and the Trade Inspectorate; Bojarski, Country Report Poland, p. 110, describing the Polish National Labour Inspectorate Act. Both Reports were drafted for the European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-discrimination Field and can be downloaded at http://www.equalitylaw.eu/.

References

  • Adomeit K (2002) Diskriminierung - Inflation eines Begriffs. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2002:1622–1623

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger HG, Roth H, Hau W, Poseck R (eds) (2015) Beck’scher Online-Kommentar, 38th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Bojarski Ł (2016) Country report Non-discrimination Poland, European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination. http://www.equalitylaw.eu/

  • Busche J (2008) Effektive Rechtsdurchsetzung und Sanktionen bei Verletzung richtliniendeterminierter Diskriminierungsverbote. In: Leible S, Schlachter M (eds) Diskriminierungsschutz durch Privatrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Epping V, Hillgruber C (2015) Beck’scher Online-Kommentar Grundgesetz, 26th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaier R, Wendtland H (2006) Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz: AGG – Eine Einführung in das Zivilrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Grünberger M (2013) Personale Gleichheit

    Google Scholar 

  • Gsell B, Krüger W, Lorenz S, Reymann C, Looschelders D (2016) Beck-Online Großkommentar. AGG

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchner C (2008) Zivilrechtlicher Diskriminierungsschutz: ein ökonomischer Ansatz. In: Leible S, Schlachter M (eds) Diskriminierungsschutz durch Privatrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Klose A (2012) Entwurf für ein Berliner Landesantidiskriminierungsgesetz (LADG) www.diss.fu-berlin.de/docs/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDOCS_derivate_000000002116/ladg.pdf, date of last access: 17 January 2016 [date of publication unknown]

  • Köhler H, Bornkamm J (eds) (2016) UWG Kommentar, 34th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Kossens M, von der Heide D, Maaß M (eds) (2015) SGB IX Kommentar, 4th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Krüger W, Rauscher T (eds) (2013) Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, 4th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühn K, Klose A (2012) Maßnahmen der Gewerbeaufsicht bei Verstößen gegen das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 2012:1443–1447

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindner JF (2008) Gewerbeuntersagung wegen Verletzung des Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes? Gewerbearchiv (GewA) 2008, p 436 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahlmann M (2014) Country report 2013 for Germany on measures to combat discrimination. http://www.migpolgroup.com/portfolio/country-reports-on-measures-to-combat-discrimination-2013/

  • Maunz T, Dürig G (eds) (2015) Grundgesetz Kommentar, 75th supplement (September 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Monen K (2008) Das Verbot der Diskriminierung, Eine Untersuchung aufgrund der Rasse, des Geschlechts und der sexuellen Identität im deutschen und U.S.-amerikanischen Privatrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Glöge R, Preis U, Schmidt I (eds) (2016) Erfurter Kommentar zum Arbeitsrecht, 16th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann D, Pahlen R, Majerski-Pahlen M (2010) Sozialgesetzbuch IX – Rehabilitation und Teilhabe behinderter Menschen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohly A, Sosnitza O (eds) (2014) UWG Kommentar, 6th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Palandt O (2015) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Kommentar, 74th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer T (2005) Stellungnahme zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung europäischer Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinien. http://webarchiv.bundestag.de/archive/2005/0825/parlament/gremien15/a12/Oeffentliche_Sitzungen/20050307/pfeiffer.pdf; last access to website, 22 Feb 2016

  • Prütting H (2015) Alternative Streitbeilegung in Verbraucherangelegenheiten -Bindungswirkungen und Vollstreckbarkeit. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Alternative Streitschlichtung - Die Umsetzung der ADR-Richtlinie in Deutschland

    Google Scholar 

  • Prütting H, Wegen G, Weinreich G (2015) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Kommentar, 10th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth H (2013) Bedeutungsverluste der Zivilgerichtsbarkeit durch Verbrauchermediation. Juristenzeitung (JZ) 2013:637 et seq

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs M (ed) (2011) Grundgesetz Kommentar, 6th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Säcker FJ (2004) Europäische Diskriminierungsverbote und deutsches Zivilrecht, Betriebs-Berater (BB). Beilage zu Heft 51:16 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiek D (ed) (2007) Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG): Ein Kommentar aus europäischer Perspektive

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Bleibtreu B, Hofmann H, Henneke H-G (eds) (2014) Grundgesetz Kommentar, 13th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Kessel M (2006) Fremde Erfahrungen mit zivilrechtlichen Diskriminierungsverboten. In: Leible S, Schlachter M (eds) Diskriminierungsschutz durch Privatrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnabel A (2014) Diskriminierungsschutz ohne Grenzen?

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoffels M (2009) Grundprobleme der Schadensersatzverpflichtung nach § 15 Abs. 1 AGG. Recht der Arbeit (RdA) 2009:204–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahumenský D (2016) Country report Non-discrimination Czech Republic. http://www.equalitylaw.eu/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bayreuth, Research Centre for Consumer Law, Bayreuth, Germany

    Malte Kramme

Authors
  1. Malte Kramme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malte Kramme .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sciences Po Law School, Paris, France

    Marie Mercat-Bruns

  2. Berkeley Law, Berkeley, California, USA

    David B. Oppenheimer

  3. Berkeley Law, Berkeley, California, USA

    Cady Sartorius

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kramme, M. (2018). Germany. In: Mercat-Bruns, M., Oppenheimer, D., Sartorius, C. (eds) Comparative Perspectives on the Enforcement and Effectiveness of Antidiscrimination Law. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90068-1_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90068-1_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90067-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90068-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation