Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Maastricht to Lisbon: The Normalisation of a Policy

  • Chapter
Transformations in EU Gender Equality

Part of the book series: Gender and Politics ((GAP))

  • 367 Accesses

Abstract

So if I describe the current situation, it is very different to that at the beginning of Community action, that is to say at the beginning of 1975, because it is now in a dynamic of economics and a dynamic of fundamental rights […] Now, it’s more a debate on the future of Europe and the future of Europe in its competitiveness […] and in the respect of its fundamental values.1

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. European Commission, Speech by Odile Quintin, Director General for Employment, Social Allairs and Equal Opportunity, ‘Meeting of Ministers responsible for gender equality’, Birmingham, Great Britain, 9 November 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  2. ECJ, Judgment of the Court of 17 May 1990. Douglas Harvey Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group. Case C-262/88.

    Google Scholar 

  3. ECJ, Judgment of the Court of 4 October 1991. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v. Stephen Grogan and others. Case C-159/90.

    Google Scholar 

  4. ECJ, Judgment of the Court of 30 April 1996. P v. S and Cornwall County Council. Case C-13/94.

    Google Scholar 

  5. ECJ, Judgment of the Court of 17 February 1998. Lisa Jacqueline Grant v. South-West Trains Ltd. Case C-249/96.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Council of the European Union, Council recommendation of 13 December 1984 on the promotion of positive action for women (84/635/EEC), 13 December 1984 (OJ L 331 of 19.12.1984).

    Google Scholar 

  7. ECJ, Judgment of the Court of 17 October 1995. Eckhard Kalanke v. Freie Hansestadt Bremen. Case C-450/93.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Opinion on the Kalanke judgment, 27 February 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  9. The proposition of the Commission emphasises the fact that it believes that only systems of rigid quotas that do not take into account individual situations are concerned by the Court’s judgment: European Commission, Communication from the Commission on the interpretation of the Judgment of the Court of Justice on 17 October 1995 in Case C-450/93, Kalanke v. Freie Hansestadt Bremen (COM (96)0088), 27 March 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  10. ECJ, Judgment of the Court of 11 November 1997. Helmut Marschall v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen. Case C-409/95.

    Google Scholar 

  11. ECJ, Judgment of the Court of 28 March 2000. Georg Badeck and Others, interveners: Hessische Ministerpräsident and Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen. Case C-158/97.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee (European Parliament), Le fil d’Ariane. Lettre d’information sur l’égalité de genre, juillet 2003, p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. George Parker, ‘Sex bias law will target media and insurance’, Financial Times, 24 June 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Anna Diamantopoulou, ‘Europe is a long way from a sexism directive’, Financial Times, 26 June 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Council of the European Union, Council 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 of 19.07.2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Council of the European Union, Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. OJ L 303 of 02.12.2000.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 June 1989. J. E. G. Achterberg-te Riele and others v. Sociale Verzekeringsbank. Joined cases 48/88, 106/88 and 107/88.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Council of the European Union, Council Resolution of 2 December 1996 on mainstreaming equal opportunities for men and women into the European Structural Funds OJ C 386 of 20.12.1996.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Council of the European Union, Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds OJ L 161 of 26.06.1999.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Council of the European Union, Council Regulation (EC) No. 2836/98 of 22 December 1998 on integrating of gender issues in development cooperation OJ L 354 of 30.12.1998.

    Google Scholar 

  21. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — Programme of Action for the mainstreaming of gender equality in Community Development Co-operation, COM/2001/0295 final.

    Google Scholar 

  22. European Parliament, Report on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — Programme of Action for the mainstreaming of gender equality in Community Development Co-operation, COM(2001) 295 final, Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, Rapporteur, Maria Martens, 27 February, 2002, Article 5.

    Google Scholar 

  23. European Commission, Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in the European Union, Annual Report 1998, Luxemburg, Publications Office of the European Union, 1999, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  24. ECJ, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 June 1989. J. E. G. Achterberg-te Riele and others v. Sociale Verzekeringsbank. Joined cases 48/88, 106/88 and 107/88.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, Decision no. 848/2004/ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a community action programme to promote organisations active at European level in the field of equality between men and women (848/2004/CE), 29 April 2004 (OJ L 157 of 30.04.2004).

    Google Scholar 

  26. ECJ, Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 February 2000. Deutsche Telekom AG v. Lilli Schröder, Case C-50/96. Point 57.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Vladimir Spidla, ‘Foreword’, in European Commission, Equality between Women and Men in the European Union, 2005, Luxemburg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2005, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Political Science Louvain-Europe (ISPOLE), Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium

    Sophie Jacquot (Marie Curie Research Fellow, Researcher)

  2. Centre d’études européennes (CEE), Sciences Po, France

    Sophie Jacquot (Marie Curie Research Fellow, Researcher)

Authors
  1. Sophie Jacquot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2015 Sophie Jacquot

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jacquot, S. (2015). From Maastricht to Lisbon: The Normalisation of a Policy. In: Transformations in EU Gender Equality. Gender and Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137436573_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation