Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T08:46:51.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improving the Position of Lesbians and Gay Men at Work in the Light of the Framework Directive for Equal Treatment in Employment: A German Case-Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Paul Skidmore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Framework Directive for equal treatment in employment adopted in November 2000 by the Council of Ministers marks an important event for the millions of lesbians and gay men within the European Union. It follows hard on the heels of the successful lobbying to have “sexual orientation” included within an anti-discrimination article inserted into the Community treaties by the Treaty of Amsterdam, as part of the development of European citizenship.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 3 , 2000 , pp. 425 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Directive 2000/78 OJ 2000 L 303/16. See Skidmore, P. “The EC Framework Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment: Towards a Comprehensive Community Anti-Discrimination Policy?” 30 (2001) ILJ 126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 There is inadequate space here to deal expressly with issues facing bisexual men and women. To the extent that they share common problems with lesbians and gay men, they are taken to be included in the discussion that follows.

3 For a general discussion of the relationship between European citizenship and sexual orientation see, Stychin, C. A Nation by Rights (Pittsburgh, Temple UP, 1998), ch. 5 Google Scholar.

4 For a detailed evaluation of the scope of this provision see, Bell, M. “The New Article 13 EC Treaty: A Sound Basis for European Anti-Discrimination Law?” 6 (1999) Maastricht Journal 5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Flynn, L. “The Implications of Article 13 EC—After Amsterdam, Will Some Forms of Discrimination Be More Equal Than Others?” 36 (1999) CMLRev 1127 Google Scholar and Barnard, C. “Article 13: Through the Looking Glass of European Citizenship” in O’ Keeffe, D. and Twomey, P. (eds.) Legal Issues of the Amsterdam Treaty (Oxford, Hart, 1999)Google Scholar; Waddington, L. “Article 13 EC: Mere Rhetoric or a Harbinger of Change?” in Dashwood, A. and Ward, A. (eds.) 1 (1998) Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (Oxford, Hart, 1999) 175 Google Scholar.

5 Earlier developments in Community case-law and that of the Council of Europe depended on the interpretation of other legal instruments, not explicitly addressed to the needs of lesbians and gay men, see van Dijk, P. “The Treatment of Homosexuals under the European Convention on Human Rights” in Waaldijk, K. and Clapham, A. (eds.) Homosexuality: a European Community Issue (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993)Google Scholar and Harrison, V. “Using EC law to challenge sexual orientation discrimination at work” in O’Keeffe, D. and Hervey, T. (eds.) Sex Equality Law in the European Union (Chichester, Wiley, 1996)Google Scholar.

6 COM (99) 565 final. A parallel proposal on race discrimination was adopted in June 2000. See Directive 2000/43 on equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ 2000 L 180/22. For discussion of the Commission proposals see Bell, M. “Article 13 EC: The Commission’s Anti-Discrimination Proposals” 29 (2000) ILJ 79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Waddington, L. “Article 13 EC: Setting Priorities in the Proposal for a Horizontal Employment Directive” 29 (2000) ILJ 176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Framework Directive above n 1 Art. 1 read together with Art. 2(1).

8 The Commission has proposed to extend this definition to the 1976 Equal Treatment Directive on sex equality, see COM (2000) 334, OJ 2000 CE 337/204.

9 Framework Directive above n 1 Art. 2(3).

10 Framework Directive ibid Art. 2(4).

11 Framework Directive ibid Art. 18.

12 For a similar use of a case-study approach, see Chapman, A. “Sexuality and workplace oppression” 20 (1995) Melbourne University Law Review 311 Google Scholar.

13 As was noted in Valentine, G. “An equal place to work? Anti-lesbian discrimination and sexual citizenship in the European Union” in Garcia-Ramon, M.D. and Monk, J. (eds.) Women of the European Onion (London, Routledge, 1996)Google Scholar. Very little has been written from a legal perspective. Useful qualitative sociological and psychological insights can be found in Dunne, G. Lesbian Lifestyles (Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maas, J. Identität und Stigma-Management von homosexuellen Führungskräften (Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Zillich, N. Homosexuelle Männer im Arbeitsleben (Campus, 1988)Google Scholar. Analysis of survey data at a national level includes the following reports: for Ireland, Gay and Lesbian Equality Network and NEXUS Research Cooperative Poverty: Lesbians and Gay Men (Combat Poverty Agency, 1995); the United Kingdom, Snape, D., Thomson, K. and Chetwynd, M. Discrimination against Gay Men and Lesbians (SCPR, 1995)Google Scholar and Palmer, A. Less Equal than Others (London, Stonewall, 1993)Google Scholar; for Germany, Knoll, C, Edinger, M. and Reisbeck, G. Grenzgänge: Schwule und Lesben in der Arbeitswelt (Profil Verlag, 1997)Google Scholar; for Sweden Förbud mot diskriminering i arbetslivet pȧ grund av sexuell läggning. Betänkande av utredningen mot diskriminering i arbetslivet pȧ grund av sexuell läggning (SEDA). Statens offentliga utredningar 1997:175. Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet, 1997, cited in Equality for Lesbians and Cay Men: A relevant issue in the civil and social dialogue (ILGA-Europe, 1998), 86–88 and for the Netherlands, Sandfort, T. and Bos, H. Sexual preference and Work (Utrecht University, 1998)Google Scholar.

14 For an English language overview, see Halbach, G., Paland, N., Schwedes, R. and Wlotzke, O. Labour Law in Germany: an overview 5th edn. (Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, 1994)Google Scholar.

15 See discussion by Richardi, R. in Münchener Handbuch zum Arbeitsrecht 2nd edn. (Munich, Beck, 2000)Google Scholar § 10. This a large multiple author commentary on labour law. In keeping with German practice it will be cited hereafter as “MünchArbR” followed by the surname of the author who wrote that particular section.

16 For an English language version of the Basic Law which has functioned as a constitutional text firstly for West Germany from 1949 onwards, and then for the united Germany since 1990, see http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/index.html

17 BT Drucksache (Official paper of the Bundestag, lower house of Parliament) 12/6000, 54.

18 Ministers asserted that Art. 3(1) of the Basic Law prohibited discrimination against lesbians and gay men in various written answers to Parliamentary questions raised by the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS). See BT Drucksachen 12/7883 (15.06.94), 13/1822 (27.06.95), 13/4152 (19.03.96).

19 Especially Knoll et al. above n 13.

20 Not an easy task, given the general silencing of a lesbian and gay voice in legal writing.

21 The limited influence on hiring enjoyed by the Works Council (where present) will not be discussed here, as in practical terms it is unable to prevent an employer from refusing to hire a lesbian or gay man on grounds of sexual orientation.

22 MünchArbR-Buchner, above n 15 at § 36.

23 Länder (state) legislative provisions which regulate public sector employment at a regional level will not be considered here.

24 For a critical assessment of the employer’s freedom to hire, with particular reference to the impact of the sex equality provisions see: Hermann, E. “Die Abschluβfreiheit—ein gefährdetes Prinzip—zugleich der Versuch einer dogmatischen Erfassung der vorvertraglichen Regelungen des § 611a BGB” (1996) Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 19 Google Scholar.

25 Employers employing sixteen or more employees have a duty to fill six per cent of all positions with registered disabled persons: $ 5(1) Disabled Persons Act (Schwerbehindertengesetz).

26 For detailed argument as to the constitutional protection of homosexuality see Risse, J. Der verfassungsrechtliche Schutz der Homosexualität (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1998)Google Scholar.

27 By way of exception, where, however, in a particular fact situation an employer’s conduct has created legitimate expectations of hiring these may attract legal protection, see below Part IV A.

28 Preis in Erfurter Kommentar zum Arbeitsrecht (Munich, Beck, 1998), § 611 BGB Rn 354.

29 See the discussion in MünchArbR-Richardi, above n 15 at §§ 39, 40.

30 Federal Labour Court or Bundesarbeitsgericht, abbreviated as “BAG”.

31 For a clear statement of the Court’s approach see its decision of 7.6.84, case 2 AZR 270/83, BAG AP Nr. 26 zu § 123 BGB.

32 See discussion in MünchArbR-Buchner, above n 15 at § 41 Rn. 174–184 on the scope of § 119 Civil Code (mistake) and § 123 Civil Code (deceit). Buchner, amongst others, has some reservations about the label “right to lie”, but agrees with the outcome that an untruthful response to an unlawful question does not permit the employer to avoid the contract.

33 Framework Directive above n 1 Art. 3(l)(a). Importantly it also covers access to practical work experience: Art. 3(l)(b), which is often a stepping-stone to paid employment.

34 Ibid Art. 9(1).

35 Ibid Art. 17.

36 See case 14/83 von Colson v. Land Nordrheinwestfalen [1984] ECR 1891; case C-271/91 Marshall v. Southampton and South West Hampshire HA (no 2) [1993] ECR I–4367; case C-180/95 Draempaehl v. Urania [1997] ECR I-2195.

37 Framework Directive above n 1 Art. 2(5).

38 Ibid Art. 4(1).

39 The special provisions of the Directive by which Member States may permit religious employers greater scope to disregard the non-discrimination principle will be discussed below, Part IV B.

40 See above n 18.

41 § 83 Works Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz).

42 See in general MünchArbR-Blomeyer, above n 15 at § 98.

43 § 75(1) Works Constitution Act.

44 § 75(2) Works Constitution Act.

45 See Fabricius, F., Kraft, A., Wiese, G., Kreutz, P. and Oetker, H. Betriebsverfassungsgesetz: Gemeinschaftskommentar 6th edn. (Luchterhand, 1998)Google Scholar § 75 Rn 19 and 89 et seq.

46 In breach of the good faith obligation § 242 Civil Code which imports inter alia constitutional values into private law. See below Part III E (ii).

47 § 611a Civil Code.

48 Ibid.

49 For difficulties in getting lesbian and gay issues onto the formal trade union agenda, see Timm, K. “Die Gewerkschaften zur Situation von Lesben und Schwulen am Arbeitsplatz” in Lesben und Schwule in der Arbeitswelt (Deutsche Aids-Hilfe, 1999), especially 32–34 Google Scholar.

50 § 2(1) Workers Protection Act.

51 Judicial remedies continue to be available in tort and contract.

52 § 3 Workers Protection Act.

53 § 4(1) Workers Protection Act.

54 § 4(2) Workers Protection Act.

55 § 2(2) Workers Protection Act. For a criticism of the narrowness of this definition see Baer, S. Würde oder Gleichheit? (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1995), 246–269 Google Scholar.

56 § 2(2) Workers Protection Act.

57 The possible meanings of this phrase and its implications are discussed by Baer, above n 55 at 250–254.

58 For examples see the case-law on military discipline, below n 136.

59 This problem of legislation being turned back on those it is designed to protect is not new. Sexual harassment legislation can be used by men to make unfounded accusations against female colleagues and managers. The point here is to draw attention to the heteronormativity of the workplace and its implications for the interpretation of particular fact situations involving lesbians and gay men.

60 For greater detail see Spamer, H. Mobbing am Arbeitsplatz (Peter Lang, 2000), 70 Google Scholar et seq.

61 § 823 (1) and (2) Civil Code.

62 § 831 Civil Code.

63 Larenz, K. and Canaris, C. Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts Band II/2 Besonderer Teil 13th edn. (Munich, Beck, 1994), 474–482 Google Scholar.

64 Ehmann, , “Die Persönlichkeit als Grundlage des Arbeitsrechts” in Hanau, P., Lorenz, E. and Matthes, H. (eds.) Festschrift für Gunter Wiese zum 70. Geburtstag (Luchterhand, 1998)Google Scholar. See also MünchArbR-Blomeyer, above n 15 at § 97.

65 § 278 Civil Code.

66 Larenz, K. Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts Band I Allgemeiner Teil 14th edn. (Munich, Beck, 1987), 296–304 Google Scholar.

67 § 262 Civil Code.

68 Larenz, above n 66 at 474–475.

69 For discussion of the sexuality of organisation, see amongst others, Acker, J. “Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organisations” 4 (1990) Gender and Society 139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adkins, L. Gendered work: sexuality, family and the labour market (Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Hearn, J., Sheppard, D., Tancred-Sherriff, P., and Burrell, G. (eds.) The sexuality of organization (London, Sage, 1989)Google Scholar.

70 Knoll et al, above n 13 at 68–72 and Süddeutsche Zeitung 3/4/5 April 1999, reproduced in Lesben und Schwule in der Arbeitswelt (Deutsche Aids-Hilfe, 1999), 184–185.

71 Framework Directive above n 1 Art. 2(3).

72 To be defined in accordance with national law. Framework Directive above n 1 Art. 2(3).

73 C-249/96 Grant v. South West Trains [1998] ECR I-621. Discussed in Barnard, C “Some are more equal than others: the decision of the Court of Justice in Grant v. South West Trains ” 1 (1998) CYEL 147 Google Scholar and Armstrong, K. “Tales of the Community: sexual orientation discrimination and EC law” 20 (1998) JSWFL 455 Google Scholar.

74 BAG decision of 15.5.97 case 6 AZR 26/96, BAGE 85, 375 = NJW 1998,1012.

75 For the argument that this supplement for married employees constitutes unjustified indirect discrimination against women, in that it is based on an outdated “breadwinner” model of employment, see Bertelsmann, K. and Pfarr, H. Diskriminierung im Erwerbsleben (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1989), 345–352 Google Scholar. Contrast the view of Hanau, P. and Preis, U. for whom the marital supplement is unproblematic: “Zur mittelbaren Diskriminierung wegen des Geschlechts” 19 (1988) Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 177, 199 Google Scholar.

76 Federal Constitutional Court, or Bundesverfassungsgericht, hereafter abbreviated as “BVerfG”. BVerfG decision of 04.10.93 case 1 BvR 640/93 NJW 1993, 3058. For an English language discussion of the institution of marriage in German law from a lesbian and gay perspective see Rauhofer, J. “The possibility of a registered partnership under German law” in Moran, L., Monk, D. and Beresford, S. (eds.) Legal Queeries (London, Cassell, 1998)Google Scholar.

77 Whilst it might be difficult to supply statistical evidence, it is clearly the case that it is more difficult for lesbian and gay couples than it is for heterosexual couples to comply with a rule which requires them to be married to qualify for a pay supplement, when the Federal Constitutional Court has upheld the existing law which denies same-sex couples the possibility of entering into marriage.

78 BVerfG decision of 21.5.99 case 1 BvR 726/98, EzA Art 3 GG Nr. 72a.

79 See case notes by Marschner A. EzBAT § 29 BAT Nr. 22 and Marhold F. EzA Art 3 GG Nr. 72.

80 Gesetz zur Beendigung der Diskriminierung gleichgeschlechtlicher Gemeinschaften: Lebenspartnerschaften BGBl 2001, Teil I, 266. The Constitutional legality of this statute is questioned in Scholz, R. and Uhle, A. “‘Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft’ und Grundgesetz” (2001) Neue juristische Wochenschrift 393 Google Scholar.

81 Acknowledged in the explanatory notes to the Bill: BT-Drucksache 14/3751, 33–34.

82 For further discussion of the weaknesses of the registered partnership model, in contrast to opening up the institution of marriage to same-sex couples, see Strick, K. “Gleichgeschlechtliche Partnerschaft—vom Straftatbestand zum Status?” (2000) Deutsches und Europäisches Familienrecht 82, 93–94 Google Scholar.

83 This is inherent in the long title of the Act. See further the notes to the Bill, above n 81.

84 Framework Directive above n 1 Art. 2(2)(b).

85 Framework Directive ibid Recital 22.

86 For reasons of space workplace protection through the works council cannot be considered here.

87 § 1(1) Dismissal Protection Act.

88 § 23(1) Dismissal Protection Act.

89 Figures for West Germany in the 1980s suggested at least ten percent of all employees were excluded, see the discussion in case C-189/91 Kirshammer-Hack [1993] ECR I-6185. More recent figures provided by the Federal Labour Office (Bundesanstalt für Arbeit) contained in the report of the Parliamentary Employment and Social Affairs Committee on the Arbeitsrecbtliches Beförderungsgesetz (subsequently repealed) point to around nineteen percent of employees being excluded by the five employee threshold. See BT-Drucksache 13/5107, 22.

90 § 1(1) Dismissal Protection Act.

91 It is assumed here that the employer has given proper notice. Where this is not the case, an additional remedy for breach of contract may be available under § 626 Civil Code.

92 See by way of analogy the view of Etzel that marriage of the employee will not provide social justification for dismissal Gemeinschaftskommentar zum Kündigungsschutzgesetz und zu sonstigen kündigungsschutzrechtlichen Vorschriften 5th edn. (Luchterhand, 1998) § 1 KSchG Rn. 322. This multi-author commentary on dismissal law will be cited as “KR” followed by the surname of the author who wrote that particular section.

93 See the Federal Labour Court’s decision with respect to the dismissal of a gay man outside the scope of the Dismissal Protection Act, discussed below Part III E (ii).

94 § 1(2) Dismissal Protection Act.

95 The position is more complicated where a works council exists. For the purposes of co-determination law, the employer must inform the works council of the reasons for dismissal: § 102(1) Works Constitution Act. Furthermore where in certain circumstances the works council has opposed the dismissal in writing it will be treated as socially unjustified: § 1(2) Dismissal Protection Act.

96 See in general KR-Etzel above n 92 at Ş 1 KSchG Rn. 262–271; similarly MünchArbR-Wank above n 15 at § 118 Rn. 25.

97 This position is unaltered by the new provision in § 623 Civil Code requiring a written form for dismissals, see Preis, U. and Gotthard, M. “Schriftformerfordernis für Kündigungen, Aufhebungsverträge und Befristungen nach § 623 BGB” (2000) Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 348 Google Scholar.

98 See in general KR-Etzel, above n 92 at § 1 KSchG Rn. 540.

99 On the interpretation of § 1(3) Dismissal Protection Act see, KR-Etzel ibid at § 1 KSchG Rn 689 et seq.

100 See Haesen, W. “Zur Aids-Problematik im Arbeitsrecht und öffentlichen Dienstrecht” (1988) Recht der Arbeit 158 Google Scholar, 163 and Richardi, R. “Arbeitsrechtliche Probleme bei Einstellung und Entlassung Aids-infizierter Arbeitnehmer” (1988) Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 73 Google Scholar, 79.

101 For discussion of this issue with regard to employer dress codes see Skidmore, P. “Dress to impress: employer regulation of lesbian and gay appearance” 8 (1999) Social and Legal Studies 509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 See in general KR-Etzel, above n 92 at § 1 KSchG Rn 472 et seq.

103 See in general KR-Etzel, ibid at $ 1 KSchG Rn 489 et seq.

104 Note similarly the more recent first instance decision which held the dismissal of a male nurse for his S/M sexual practices to be socially unjustified. It refused to accept the argument that on account of his sexual behaviour he was more likely than other employees were to cross accepted boundaries at work. Berlin Labour Court (ArbG Berlin) decision of 07.07.99 case 36 Ca 30545/98, LAGE zu BGB § 611 Kirchliche Arbeitnehmer Nr. 11.

105 Berlin Labour Court (ArbG Berlin) decision of 16.06.87 case 24 Ca 319/86, NZA 1987, 637.

106 In their handbook, “the gay lawyers” suggest that in their experience many gay men give up too readily in disputes with their employers. Juristen, Die Schwulen (eds.) Schwule im Recht (Paletteverlag, 1994), 32 Google Scholar.

107 BVerfG decision of 27.1.98 case 1 BvL 15/87, BVerfGE 97, 169, 178, approving the views of Oetker, H. “Gibt es einen Kündigungschutz auβerhalb des Kündigungsschutzgesetzes?” (1997) Arbeit und Recht 41 Google Scholar and Preis, U. “Der Kündigungsschutz auβerhalb des Kündigungsschutzgesetzes” (1997) Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 1256 Google Scholar, especially 1264-68. See subsequently Hanau, P. “Verfassungsrechtlicher Kündigungsschutz” in Hanau, P., Heither, F., and Kühling, J. (eds) Richterliches Arbeitsrecht (Munich, Beck, 1999)Google Scholar.

108 Dismissal of an HIV+ employee, following a suicide attempt, and continued unavailability for work was held not to be “immoral”. BAG decision of 16.02.89 case 2 AZR 347/88, BAGE61, 151.

109 BAG decision of 23.06.94 case 2 AZR 617/93, BAGE 77,128 = NZA 1994, 1080.

110 In this particular case, the employer had, according to the applicant, prized information about his sexuality from a co-worker. Given that the lower courts had not made contrary findings of fact, the Federal Labour Court had no choice but to accept this position. This strengthened its conclusion that the employer had acted in bad faith and in abuse of its position.

111 See casenotes by Boemke, B. (1994) Wirtschaftsrechtliche Beratung 912 Google Scholar and von Hoyningen-Heune G. EzA zu § 242 BGB Nr. 39.

112 von Hoyningen-Heune ibid.

113 Subject to the duty as a matter of co-determination law to inform the works council of the reason for dismissal: § 102(1) Works Constitution Act.

114 Framework Directive above n 1 Art. 3(l)(c).

115 Framework Directive ibid Art. 10(1).

116 Art. 140 of the Basic Law when read with Art. 137 (3) Constitution of the Weimar Republic (Germany’s pre-war constitution).

117 See in general MünchArbR-Richardi, above n 15 at §§ 192, 193.

118 See for example the declaration (no. 51) of catholic bishops: Erklärung der deutschen Bischöfe zum kirchlichen Dienst and Grundordnung des kirchlichen Dienstes im Rahmen kirchlicher Arbeitsverhältnisse (Deutscher Bischofskonferenz, 1993).

119 BVerfGE 70, 138, 162.

120 These are treated as private law employment relationships.

121 For those who do exercise direct religious functions, usually no private law relationship is founded, thus falling outside the scope of secular labour courts. They do not enjoy any legal protection against discrimination on grounds of sexuality. On the double-life of gay priests within the German Catholic church see: Der Spiegel 18/1997, 128.

122 He had developed a relationship with a young gay man living in a town more than fifty miles away, whose mother decided to inform the employer on discovering the relationship.

123 BAG decision of 30.06.83 case 2 AZR 524/81 NJW 1984, 1917. On the facts the court refused to uphold the dismissal because the employer had not given the employee sufficient warning. The employer’s application to have the employment relationship dissolved because trust and confidence had broken down irretrievably was remitted back to a lower court. This judgment and those of the lower courts in the same case are discussed in Malt, M. “. . . ist unstreitig homosexuell” Diskriminierung von Lesben und Schwulen in Arbeits- und Zivilrecht (Frühlingserwachen, 1991), 42–56 Google Scholar.

124 See discussion in Geck, B. and Schimmel, R. “Grenzen der Kündigung kirchlicher Arbeitsverhältnisse” (1995) Arbeit und Recht 177 Google Scholar.

125 For a wider discussion of this problematic see Moran, L. The homosexual(ity) of law (London, Routledge, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chapter 1; Stychin, C. Law’s desire (London, Routledge, 1995), ch. 5 Google Scholar.

126 Lörrach Labour Court (ArbG Lörrach) decision of 25.08.92, case 1 Ca 125/92, Arbeit und Recht 1993, 151. Upheld on appeal on much narrower grounds: Stuttgart Regional Labour Court (LAG Stuttgart) decision of 24.06.93, case 11 Sa 39/93, NZA 1994, 416.

127 Above n 119.

128 This decision should not be interpreted as meaning that the difficulties, which can often face lesbians and gay men in obtaining a legal remedy in the event of discrimination at the hiring stage (above), have been overcome. A particular fact situation existed here which gave rise to legitimate expectations on the part of the applicant that he would be taken on and not rejected on arbitrary grounds. This made it easier for him to obtain a legal remedy for failure to hire than is generally the case.

129 See www.ekd.de/EKD-Texte/homo.html

130 Framework Directive above n 1 Art. 3(1).

131 Framework Directive ibid Art. 4(2) and Recital 24.

132 Framework Directive ibid Art. 4(2).

133 For discussion of the British policy and attempts to challenge it prior to the successful litigation in the European Court of Human Rights, see Skidmore, P. “Sexuality and the UK armed Forces: judicial review of the ban on homosexuality” in Carver, T. and Mottier, V. (eds.) Politics of sexuality (London, Routledge, 1998)Google Scholar.

134 § 1 (2) Soldiers’ Act, prior to the amendments of December 2000 necessitated by the decision of the Court of Justice in case C-285/98 Kreil v. Germany [2000] ECR I-nyr, decision of 11.01.2000. For relevant amendments to the Constitution and the Soldiers’ Act, see respectively, BGBl 2000 Teil I, 1755 and 1815.

135 For a critical assessment of the ban in Art 12a Basic Law see Slupik, V. “Bewaffneter Dienst von Frauen in der Bundeswehr” (1990) Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 305 Google Scholar.

136 The treatment of homosexuality as a disciplinary offence will not be explored here. A flavour of the military’s homophobic attitude can be gained from the insight that they distinguish between “accidental” and “pathological” homosexual behaviour. See decisions of the Federal Administrative Court, or Bundesverwaltungsgericht, hereafter “BVerwG”. BVerwG decision of 23.2.99 case 2 WD 15/98, BVerwGE 113, 296 and BVerwG decision of 30.07.91 case 2 WD 5/91, BVerwGE 93,143.

137 The officer had effectively “outed” himself by writing to the Ministry of Defence on behalf of the National Group of Gay Soldiers.

138 BVerwG decision of 18.11.97, case 1 WB 48/97, NVwZ-RR 1998, 244.

139 In contrast heterosexual behaviour was described as “normal” and “everyday”.

140 It thus restated the same position which had been arrived at by the Court in 1979 (BVerwG decision of 25.10.79 1 WB 113/78, BVerwGE 63,286) and in 1990 (BVerwG decision of 8.11.90 1 WB 61/90, BVerwGE 86, 355). Note the criticism of this latter decision by Kappe, S. “Der Mythos der Wehrkraftzersetzung—homosexuelle Offiziere und Ausbilder in der Bundeswehr” (1991) Demokratie und Recht 465 Google Scholar.

141 Contrast the view of the European Court of Human Rights in Smith and Grady v. United Kingdom applications 33985/96 and 33986/96, (1999) 29 EHRR 493, especially paras 97–105, which refused to accept generalised assertions about the lack of credibility enjoyed by lesbian and gay military personnel in its finding that the UK’s blanket dismissal policy was in breach of Article 8 ECHR. For a German perspective, see Schmidt-Radefeldt, R. “Streitkräfte und Homosexualität” (2000) Neue Zeitschrift für Wehrrecht 141 Google Scholar.

142 Lüneburg Administrative Court (VG Lüneburg) case 1 A 141/97 decision of 3.6.99, NdsVBl 2000, 251. Note that interim relief was refused by the appeal court in this case, see decision of Lüneburg Administrative Appeals Court (OVG Lüneburg) 16.12.98, case 2 M 4436/98, NVwZ-RR 1999, 772.

143 Framework Directive above n 1 Art. 3(1).

144 See the scope for derogations, Framework Directive ibid Art. 2(5).

145 Framework Directive ibid Art. 8(2).