Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:44:22.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. Social Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Joe McMahon  and
Erika Szyszczak
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The wide range of developments in social policy has necessitated dividing this commentary into two parts. The first part will examine discrimination law developments; the second part, published inthe next issue, will look at general employment law developments.

Type
Current Developments European Union Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , October 2005 , pp. 983 - 995
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2005

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 OJ 2004 L 373/37. The Directive must be implemented by 21 Dec 2009. The watered-down version of the Directive does not address the media and advertising, education, and taxation. The even more far-reaching suggestions put forward by the European Women's Lobby on family and societal violence and the participation of women in decision-making were lost at an early stage. See di Torella, E Caracciolo and Masselot, A ‘The Future of Gender Equality’ in Tridimas, T and Nebbia, P (eds) EU Law for the 21st Century: Rethinking the New Legal Order. Vol II (Hart Publishing Oxford 2004);Google ScholarMasselot, A ‘Reflection on Council Directive Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment Between Men and Women in the Access to Supply of Goods and Services’ in Millns, S and Diaz, M (eds) Gender Equality and the Future of the European Union(Palgrave Basingstoke 2005).Google Scholar

2 An alternative legal base would be Art 95 EC. See EC Commission COM(2004) 279 final and the Options Paper, July 2003, available at <http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/ news/2003/jul/consultation_en.html>.

3 For background to this controversial issue see EC Commission, COM(2003) 657 final and SEC (2003) 1213; European Parliament, PE 337.825 (final A5–0155/2004).

4 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunity and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, COM(2004) 279 final.

5 Communication from the Commission on the Social Agenda, COM(2005) 33 final.

6 Communication from the Commission, The Fundamental Rights Agency, Public Consultation Document, Brussels, 25 Oct 2004. In 2003 the Commission adopted proposals to recast Regulation 1035/97 (COM(2003) 483); in Dec 2003 the European Council called for the extension of the mandate European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia to become a Human Rights Agency.

7 See Lisa Waddington ‘Taking Stock and Looking Forward. The Commission Green Paper on Equality and Non-Discrimination in an Enlarged European Union’ (2004) 33 ILJ 358.

8 Case C-327/04 Commission v Finland, judgment of 24 Feb 2005; Case C-320/04 Commission v Luxembourg, judgment of 24 Feb 2004; Case C-329/04 Commission v Germany judgment of 28 Apr 2005.

9 See European Anti-Discrimination Law Review, Issue 1, Apr 2005, 32. Summary Reports of the implementation of the directives in the old and accession States can be found at <http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/fundamental_rights/public/pubst_en.htm>.

10 OJ 2002 L 269/15.

11 Communication From the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Scoreboard on Implementing the Social Policy Agenda, COM(2004) 137 final, 16.

12 Case C-519/03 Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg judgment of 14 Apr 2005.

13 OJ 1996 L 145/4.

14 See Case C-342/01 Merino Gómez, discussed below.

15 Case C-172/02, judgment of 30 Apr 2004.

16 Case C-4/02 and 5/02 [2003] ECR I-12575.

17 Case C-256/01, judgment of 13 Jan 2004. The Opinion of the Advocate General is discussed at (2003) 52 ICLQ 1013.

18 ibid para 46.

19 Case C-320/00 AG Lawrence and ors v Regent Office Care Ltd, Commercial Catering Group, Mitie Secure Services Ltd [2002] ECR I-7325.

20 Case C-285/02, judgment of 27 May 2004.

21 Case C-220/02 Osterreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten v Wirtschaftskammer Osterreich, judgment of 8 June 2004.

22 See Case C-186/01 Alexander Dory v Federal Republic of Germany [2003] ECR I-2479.

23 Case C-313/02, judgment of 12 Oct 2004, para 56 (references omitted).

24 See M Bell ‘Equality and the European Union Constitution’ (2004) 33 ILJ 242; di Torella, E Caracciolo and Masselot, A ‘The Value of Gender Equality’ in Millns, S and Aziz, M (eds) Values in the Constitution of Europe (Dartmouth Aldershot 2005).Google Scholar

25 For a further account of wider models of discrimination which could apply to the EU see R Holtmaat ‘Towards Different Law and Public Policy. The Significance of Article 5a CEDAW for the Elimination of Structural Gender Discrimination’ May 2004 available at: <http://home.szw.nl/navigatie/dossier/dspdossier.cfm?set id=1691&doctype id=7>.

26 Case C-5/02 judgment of 9 Sept 2003.

27 Case C-117/01 KB v NHS, judgment of 7 Jan 2004. The Advocate Generala's Opinion is discussed at (2003) 52 ICLQ 1013.

28 Case C-313/02. judgment of 12 Oct 2004. Opinion delivered 18 May 2004.

29 Case C-77/02 judgment of 11 Sept 2003.

30 Case C-187/00 [2003] ECR I-2741, para 44.

31 OJ 1998 L14/6.

32 Case C-196/02, judgment of 10 Mar 2005.

33 Ibid, para 70. References omitted

34 Ibid, para 71. References omitted.

35 Ibid, para 73.

36 Case C-236/98 [2000] ECR I-2189.

37 Case C-320/00 [2002] ECR I-7325.

38 Above n 32, para 29.

39 Ibid para 40.

40 See Case C-313/02 Wippel, discussed below.

41 For a discussion as to why direct discrimination should not be justifiable, and only clear exemptions from the principle of equal treatment should be permissible see Szyszczak, E, ‘Pregnancy Discrimination’ (1996) 59 Modern Law Review 589.Google Scholar

42 Case C-147/02, judgment of 30 Mar 2004.

43 Case 342/93 [1996] ECR 475.

44 The organization of working time Directive (Council Directive 93/104/EC, OJ 1993 L 307/18); the protection of pregnant workers Directive (Council Directive 92/85/EEC, OJ 1992 L 348/1); the equal treatment for men and women Directive (Council Directive 76/207/EEC, OJ 1976 L 39/40).

45 Case C-342/01 judgment of 18 Mar 2004.

46 Case C-313/02 judgment of 12 Oct 2004.

47 Para 49. Opinion delivered 18 May 2004.

48 ibid para 91.

49 Case C-160/01 [2003] ECR I-4791.

50 Para 39.

51 Case C-380/01 Schneider v Bundesminister für Juastiz, judgment of 5 Feb 2004.

52 Case C-319/03 judgment of 30 Sept 2004.