We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
from Part II - Reverse Discrimination from National Perspectives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2018
CONCLUSION BY AREA?
Apart from Italy, the Member States under analysis remedy reverse discrimination in some cases and allow it in others. Part II has discussed the assessments by national authorities of situations of reverse discrimination on the basis of the area in which these cases could be situated. The question arises as to whether a conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the area in which the reverse discrimination arises. In particular, it might be that reverse discrimination in the area of the free movement of goods is considered to be less problematic than in the area of freedom of movement for persons. That is to say, the free movement of goods is generally considered to be a less sensitive area than the freedom of movement for persons.
It was found that there were three out of five cases in the area of the free movement of goods in which the national authority allowed reverse discrimination, 1259 while there were only three out of ten cases in the area of the freedom of movement for persons in which reverse discrimination was allowed. 1260, 1261 Admittedly, only a limited number of assessments of reverse discrimination by national authorities were examined. Hence, this finding should not be given too much weight.
Moreover, there appear to be no persuasive arguments for the proposition that situations of reverse discrimination of goods should never be considered to be problematic or that situations of reverse discrimination in the area of freedom of movement for persons should always be considered to be problematic. It is submitted that the key to distinguishing problematic from unproblematic situations of reverse discrimination lies less in the area of goods versus persons, and more in the concept of compensation versus overcompensation by Union law.
APPLICATION OF THE WORKING HYPOTHESIS TO THE NATIONAL LEVEL
INTERPRETATION OF COMPENSATION AND OVERCOMPENSATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL
In Part II, the working hypothesis based on the concept of compensation and overcompensation to the national level was applied. That is to say, for each situation of reverse discrimination assessed at national level, we examined whether a mere compensation or an overcompensation by Union law was at stake.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
