Abstract
This chapter analyses the case law the Court of Justice has issued on the protected grounds of discrimination under Articles 18 and 19 TFEU. In order to do that, for each ground of discrimination (with the exception of religion) a few cases of the case law of the Court of Justice have been taken as examples, with the aim of offering a new perspective on the way in which the Court is dealing with one of the most delicate issues both among scholars and in public opinion. The challenge of this chapter lies on the fact that anti-discrimination law in the EU is like a chorus with several different voices, for which reason the attempt to portray a consistent picture of EU anti-discrimination law is like striving for harmony in an orchestra. Hence in conclusion to this chapter we should be able to understand whether the Court of Justice is forging a ‘new’ concept of equality or whether it is trying to adapt its reasoning to the circumstances of the case at hand, in keeping with the essence of the relational character of the principle of non-discrimination.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For the purposes of this chapter, it will be maintained that the principle of equality and that of non-discrimination have equivalent meaning and that they may be used as synonyms. This is because the Court of Justice itself uses the two concepts as synonyms in its case law, and appears not to draw a real distinction. This chapter takes into account developments up to September 2016.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
Chapter 5.
- 5.
Article 18 TFEU (ex Article 12 TEC): ‘Within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may adopt rules designed to prohibit such discrimination.’
- 6.
Article 19 TFEU (ex Article 13 TEC): ‘1. Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties and within the limits of the powers conferred by them upon the Union, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. 2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may adopt the basic principles of Union incentive measures, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States, to support action taken by the Member States in order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1.’
- 7.
See the pending cases, expected to be delivered by the Court of Justice from late 2016 to early 2017: ECJ, Case C-157/15 Achbita, and ECJ, Case C-188/15 Bougnaoui and ADDH. The Advocates General involved, Kokott and Sharpston, have already delivered their Opinions. However, it seems too early to indulge in a comment before having analyzed the Court’s position.
- 8.
The Court of Justice has, however, already faced the religious factor in two cases: ECJ, Case 196/87 Udo Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie EU:C:1988:475 and in ECJ, Case C-54/99 Association Eglise de scientologie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v The Prime Minister EU:C:2000:124. These cases do not frontally address the issue of religious discrimination like the two upcoming cases mentioned above (supra n. 7). For a deeper substantive analysis of the religious factor in the ECJ’s case law, see Casolari (2012), Ventura (2011), Vickers (2007).
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
In particular Acosta Arcarazo (2011).
- 13.
Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158/77).
- 14.
ECJ, Case C-34/09 Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm) EU:C:2011:124.
- 15.
ECJ, Case C-333/13 Elisabeta Dano and Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig EU:C:2014:2358.
- 16.
- 17.
See Article 3 of Directive 2004/38/EC , defining its scope of application. Article 3, Beneficiaries: ‘1. This Directive shall apply to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 who accompany or join them.’
- 18.
- 19.
Article 5(2), TEU and Article 7 TFEU. See, in general, Craig and de Búrca (2011), p. 79, and Craig (2006), p. 403.
- 20.
See, for instance, the Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Zambrano: ECJ, Case C-34/09 Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm) EU:C:2010:560.
- 21.
ECJ, Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci and Others v Bundesministerium für Inneres EU:C:2011:734.
- 22.
ECJ, Case C-434/09 Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department EU:C:2011:277.
- 23.
See, to that effect, ECJ, Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern EU:C:2010:104, para 42.
- 24.
ECJ, Case C-34/09 Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), supra n. 14, paras 42–43.
- 25.
See German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE), 2 BvL 52/71, 29 May 1974 (Solange I) and German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE), 2 BvR 197/83, 22 October 1986 (Solange II). On the further implications of this case law which led to the latter Lisbon judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court see Rossi (2010) and her Chap. 1 in this volume.
- 26.
See the Granital decision of the Italian Constitutional Court No 170/1984, 5 June 1984, at para 7, where the Italian Constitutional Court asserted its power of judicial review in all cases in which a provision of EU law is likely to breach the fundamental principles of the Italian constitutional order. On this point see the comment in Gaja (1984).
- 27.
ECJ, Case C-333/13 Elisabeta Dano and Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, supra n. 15, para 60.
- 28.
In this case it is clear that the Court of Justice, being subject to wide criticism (see Peers 2015), decided to pay deference to the Member States’ fears (perhaps unjustified) that a different approach would have left room for an unchecked exploitation of the ‘market’ in social security benefits. In this chapter it is argued that the rationale behind this deference lies in an attempt of the Court to find a compromise by which to achieve a balance with the approach previously taken in Zambrano. Other distinguished scholars, however, seem to think that this deference is driven by the strong enduring influence the Member States exert on the Court of Justice and by the ‘political climate, the sensitivity of migration policy and in particular the claims migrants make on national welfare systems’ (see Chap. 7 by McDonnell in this volume). Others (see Verschueren 2015) have argued that Dano, if it is to be consistent with the previous case law, can only be interpreted narrowly.
- 29.
ECJ, Case C-333/13 Elisabeta Dano and Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, supra n. 15, para 73.
- 30.
Equality between women and men is mentioned in the Treaty on European Union both as a value informing the activity of the EU (Article 2 TEU) and as one of the objects of EU activity (Article 3 TEU).
- 31.
- 32.
For an interesting document quoting all the relevant case law, see European Commission (2010).
- 33.
ECJ, Case 80/70 Gabrielle Defrenne v Belgian State EU:C:1971:55.
- 34.
ECJ, Case 43/75 Gabrielle Defrenne v Sabena EU:C:1976:56.
- 35.
ECJ, Case 149/77 Gabrielle Defrenne v Sabena EU:C:1978:130.
- 36.
It should be noted here that the last Defrenne-Sabena judgment was issued on 15 June 1978, when the European Economic Community did not enjoy a legal basis for the application of fundamental rights. The first legal basis in the Treaties dates back to 1987, with the Single European Act, and to 1992, with the Maastricht Treaty.
- 37.
Directive 2010/41/UE of 7 July 2010 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Council Directive of 11 December 1986 (OJ 2010 L 180/1); Directive 2010/18 of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive of 3 June 1996 (OJ 2010 L 68/13); 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 (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204/23); 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 2004 L 373/37); Directive 92/85/EC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ 1992 L 348/1); Directive 86/613/EC of 11 December 1986 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood (OJ 1986 L 359/56); Directive 79/7/EC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6/24).
- 38.
The case of the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of sex is not unique. See also, for the right to private life, ECJ, Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke v Land Hessen EU:C:2010:662.
- 39.
This is the imperceptible difference between the interpretation and the application of a principle.
- 40.
On Charter’s role in strengthening the rights and principles contained in it, see Rossi (2016), describing how the Charter has become a true constitutional paradigm in the EU legal order, and pointing out that in the near future this legal instrument is likely to become more important than the Treaties, representing the real ‘constitutional pattern’ of the EU.
- 41.
ECJ, Case C-236/09 Test-Achats ASBL and Others v Conseil des ministres EU:C:2011:100.
- 42.
Former Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2004/113/EC.
- 43.
ECJ, Case C-236/09 Test-Achats ASBL and Others v Conseil des ministers, supra n. 41, para 30.
- 44.
Ibid., para 32.
- 45.
ECJ, Case C-363/12 Z. v A Government Department and The Board of Management of a Community School EU:C:2014:159.
- 46.
- 47.
Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180/22).
- 48.
Article 3 of Directive 2000/43/EC reads as follows: ‘Within the limits of the powers conferred upon the Community, this Directive shall apply to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in relation to: (a) conditions for access to employment, to self-employment and to occupation, including selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy, including promotion; (b) access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including practical work experience; (c) employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay; (d) membership of and involvement in an organisation of workers or employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations; (e) social protection, including social security and healthcare; (f) social advantages; (g) education; (h) access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public, including housing.’
- 49.
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303/16).
- 50.
ECJ, Case C-54/07 Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV EU:C:2008:397.
- 51.
ECJ, Case C-391/09 Malgožata Runevič-Vardyn and Łukasz Paweł Wardyn v Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija and Others EU:C:2011:291.
- 52.
ECJ, Case C-310/10 Ministerul Justiţiei și Libertăţilor Cetăţenești v Ştefan Agafiţei and Others EU:C:2011:467.
- 53.
ECJ, Case C-571/10 Servet Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES) and Others EU:C:2012:233.
- 54.
The case involved a job seeker who was denied a position he applied for. Claiming discrimination on the ground of race, he requested access to the list of applicants who had been hired for the same position. The employer refused to do so, and the Court found that this behaviour was not prohibited under Directive 2000/43/EC.
- 55.
ECJ, Case C-415/10 Galina Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH EU:C:2012:217.
- 56.
ECJ, Case C-83/14 CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia EU:C:2015:480.
- 57.
This, in fact, is one of the very few examples of ‘discrimination by association ’ known in the recent experience of EU law. The applicant did not herself belong to the Roma minority but was suffering discrimination for being associated with the Roma ethnic group (an association made by virtue of her living in the same neighbourhood). See Ellis and Watson (2012), p. 146. On this point, see also Sect. 5.2.2 in Benoît-Rohmer’s chapter in this volume, where the author recalls the importance of the CHEZ/Nikolova case for defining discrimination by association .
- 58.
The Court’s reasoning is explained at para 35 of Agafitei: ‘It should also be recalled in that connection that Article 13 EC—now Article 19 TFEU—which contains only rules governing the competences of the Community and on the basis of which the directives in question were adopted, does not refer to discrimination on grounds of socio-professional category or place of work, so that neither Article 13 EC nor Article 19 TFEU can even constitute a legal basis for Council measures to combat such discrimination (see, to that effect Chacón Navas, paragraph 55, and Coleman, paragraph 46).’ Cf. ECJ, Case C-310/10 Ministerul Justiţiei și Libertăţilor Cetăţenești v Ştefan Agafiţei and Others, supra n. 52.
- 59.
ECJ, Case C-394/11 Valeri Hariev Belov v CHEZ Elektro Balgaria AD and Others EU:C:2013:48.
- 60.
ECJ, Case C-391/09 Malgožata Runevič-Vardyn and Łukasz Paweł Wardyn v Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija and Others, supra n. 51, para 43.
- 61.
ECJ, Case C-83/14 CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, supra n. 56, para 42.
- 62.
See Bell (2011).
- 63.
See Lazzerini (2015).
- 64.
See Sect. 6.7 of this chapter, on the principle of non-discrimination of the ground of age.
- 65.
ECJ, Case C-201/13 Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others EU:C:2014:2132.
- 66.
Ibid., para 30.
- 67.
- 68.
ECJ, Case C-201/13 Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others, supra n. 65, para 34.
- 69.
- 70.
The legal basis for Article 19 TFEU, formerly Article 13 TEC, was introduced with the Amsterdam Treaty in (1997).
- 71.
The only competences available in family law are the ones described in Article 81(3) TFEU.
- 72.
ECJ, Case C-267/06 Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen EU:C:2008:179.
- 73.
ECJ, Case C-147/08 Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg EU:C:2011:286.
- 74.
ECJ, Case C-267/06 Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, supra n. 72, para 45.
- 75.
ECJ, Case C-147/08 Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, supra n. 73, para 32: ‘It follows from the foregoing that the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is that Directive 2000/78 is to be interpreted as meaning that supplementary retirement pensions such as those paid to former employees of the Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg and their survivors on the basis of the First RGG, which constitute pay within the meaning of Article 157 TFEU, do not fall outside the material scope of the Directive either on account of Article 3(3) thereof or on account of Recital 22 in the preamble thereto.’
- 76.
ECJ, Case C-267/06 Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, supra n. 72, para 67.
- 77.
ECJ, Case C-147/08 Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, supra n. 73, para 42.
- 78.
ECJ, Case C-267/12 Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres EU:C:2013:823.
- 79.
The two earlier cases, Maruko and Römer, instead involved public bodies and individuals.
- 80.
Law no. 404-2013 of 17 May 2013.
- 81.
ECJ, Case C-267/12 Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres, supra n. 78, para 41.
- 82.
See, for instance, the previously quoted Deckmyn judgment (ECJ, Case C-201/13 Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others, supra n. 65).
- 83.
On the question of the horizontality of the principle of non-discrimination, see Di Federico (2014).
- 84.
ECJ, Case C-144/04 Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm EU:C:2005:709. See infra Sect. 6.7.
- 85.
ECJ, Case C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH and Co. KG. EU:C:2010:21. See infra Sect. 6.7.
- 86.
One might speculate that this is a case of ‘triangular direct effect’, where the directive is applicable to the collective agreement (negotiated between the State and trade-union representatives), and this has a ‘cascade’ effect on the relation between the parties to the case.
- 87.
See Sect. 5.3.1 of Benoît-Rohmer’s chapter in this volume, where the author, focusing in particular on Hay, recalls how the Court’s approach in this line of case law has been ‘audacious’ and ‘particularly favourable to homosexuals’.
- 88.
On this point see also Sect. 5.2.1 in Benoît-Rohmer’s chapter in this volume.
- 89.
Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC: ‘In order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities, reasonable accommodation shall be provided. This means that employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within the framework of the disability policy of the Member State concerned.’
- 90.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted on 13 December 2006 and opened for signature on 30 March 2007.
- 91.
ECJ, Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab (C-335/11) and HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S (C-337/11) EU:C:2013:222.
- 92.
ECJ, Case C-312/11 European Commission v Italian Republic EU:C:2013:446.
- 93.
ECJ, Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab (C-335/11) and HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S (C-337/11), supra n. 91, para 39.
- 94.
ECJ, Case C-356/12 Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern EU:C:2014:350.
- 95.
Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2006 L 403/18).
- 96.
ECJ, Case C-356/12 Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern, supra n. 94, para 42.
- 97.
Ibid., para 50.
- 98.
See Yetano (2014).
- 99.
ECJ, Case C-356/12 Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern, supra n. 94, para 51.
- 100.
Ibid., para 52.
- 101.
Ibid., para 62.
- 102.
The Court in this case also carried out a test of the measure under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, concluding, however, that while the Convention is part of the EU acquis, it is not justiciable before the Court for not being unconditional and precise enough to allow a review of the measure under EU law (ECJ, Case C-356/12 Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern, supra n. 94, para 69). The Court came to the same conclusion in relation to other international agreements, and in particular to the Aarhus Convention. See in this regard ECJ, Case C-612/13 P Clientearth v Commission EU:C:2015:486, paras 33–45.
- 103.
ECJ, Case C-356/12 Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern, supra n. 94, para 78.
- 104.
In 2011 the Commission launched an impact assessment with a view to proposing a European Disability Act, but the proposal has since died.
- 105.
That is why Article 18(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC allows a longer term for transposing the directive at the national level in the matter of discrimination on grounds such as age and disability (a minimum of 3 to a maximum of 6 years from 3 December 2003).
- 106.
- 107.
See the previous cases Hay (ECJ, Case C-267/12, Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres, supra n. 78) and Deckmyn (ECJ, Case C-201/13, Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others, supra n. 65), were the Court either interprets or applies the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation and race to cases involving two private parties.
- 108.
ECJ, Case C-144/04 Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm, supra n. 84.
- 109.
ECJ, Case C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH and Co. KG., supra n. 85.
- 110.
ECJ, Case C-427/06 Birgit Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH EU:C:2008:517.
- 111.
According to the referring court, the date was 28 February 2004, when the contract between Mangold and Helm was set to expire.
- 112.
The transitional period for implementing measures to fight discrimination on the ground of age and disability for Germany was set to expire on 2 December 2006.
- 113.
ECJ, Case C-144/04 Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm, supra n. 84, para 71.
- 114.
Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175/43).
- 115.
ECJ, Case C-144/04 Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm, supra n. 84, para 75.
- 116.
ECJ, Case C-427/06 Birgit Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH, supra n. 110, para 71.
- 117.
Ibid., para 73.
- 118.
ECJ, Case C-427/06 Birgit Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH EU:C:2008:297, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, paras 79–93.
- 119.
ECJ, Case C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH and Co. KG., supra n. 85, para 21.
- 120.
Here the case is similar to Deckmyn and Hay, where the Court said that national courts should disapply provisions contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of race and sexual orientation . But the case also presented analogies with Zambrano, where EU legislation is in principle not applicable because it is a purely internal situation , but the Court decided to apply the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality.
- 121.
ECJ, Case C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH and Co. KG. EU:C:2009:429, Opinion of AG Bot, paras 59, 62, and 63, where the advocate general explores the solutions the Court excogitated to supplement the lack of direct effect of directives .
- 122.
ECJ, Case C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH and Co. KG. EU:C:2009:429, Opinion of AG Bot, para 90.
- 123.
European Commission, Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, COM(2008) 426 final.
- 124.
See Benedettelli (1989), p. 18.
- 125.
The European Parliament Research Service has, however, recently put out a comprehensive report on the impact the proposal will have in the EU. See Altan et al. (2014).
References
Acosta Arcarazo D (2011) The long-term residence status as a subsidiary form of EU citizenship: an analysis of directive 2003/109. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague
Altan L et al (2014) Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment between Persons irrespective of Religion or Belief, Disability, Age or Sexual Orientation—Impact Assessment of the Proposal for a Council Directive on Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment between Persons irrespective of Religion or Belief, Disability, Age or Sexual Orientation, as well as Amendments 37 and 41 of the European Parliament, European Parliamentary Research Service. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/supporting-analyses-search.html. Accessed 31 Dec 2016
Biagioni G (2011) Il principio di non discriminazione in base all’età—In margine al caso Kücükdeveci. In: Castangia I, Biagioni G (eds) Il principio di non discriminazione nel diritto dell’Unione Europea. Editoriale Scientifica, Naples, pp 257–270
Bell M (2011) The principle of equal treatment: widening and deepening. In: Craig P, de Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 611–639
Benedettelli MV (1989) Il giudizio di eguaglianza nell’ordinamento giuridico delle Comunità Europee. CEDAM, Padua
Berneri C (2014) Protection of families composed by EU citizens and third-country nationals: some suggestions to tackle reverse discrimination. Eur J Migr Law 16:249–275
Besson S (2008) Gender discrimination under the EU and the ECHR: never shall the twain meet? Hum Rights Law Rev 8:647–682
Bonardi O (2007) Le discriminazioni basate sull’età. In: Barbera M (ed) Il nuovo diritto antidiscriminatorio—Il quadro comunitario e nazionale. Giuffrè Editore, Milan, pp 125–170
Bribosia E, Bombois T (2011) Interdiction de la discrimination en raison de l’âge—Du principe, de ses exceptions et de quelques hesitations. Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen 41:41–84
Casolari F (2012) L’azione dell’Unione europea contro le discriminazioni basate sulla religione: l’impatto della giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani. Diritti Umani e Diritto Internazionale 3:475–511
Casolari F (2014) Commento all’art. 23 della Carta dei Diritti Fondamentali dell’Unione Europea. In: Pocar F, Baruffi MC (eds) Commentario breve ai Trattati dell’Unione Europea, 2nd edn. CEDAM, Padua, pp 1731–1734
Craig P (1997) Directives: direct effect, indirect effect and the construction of national legislation. Eur Law Rev 22:519–538
Craig P (2006) EU administrative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Curtin D (1990) Directives: the effectiveness of judicial protection of individual rights. Common Market Law Rev 27:709–739
Danisi C (2015) Tutela dei diritti umani, non discriminazione e orientamento sessuale. Editoriale Scientifica, Naples
de Witte B (2011) Direct effect, primacy and the nature of the legal order. In: Craig P, de Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 323–362
Di Federico G (2010) La sentenza Kücükdeveci e la vexata quaestio degli effetti orizzontali delle direttive. Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro 29:1002–1111
Di Federico G (2014) Access to healthcare in the Post-Lisbon Era and the genuine enjoyment of EU citizens’ rights. In: Rossi LS, Casolari F (eds) The EU after Lisbon: amending or coping with the existing treaties? Springer, Heidelberg, pp 177–212
Ellis E, Watson P (2012) EU anti-discrimination law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
European Commission (2010) Compilation of case law on the equality of treatment between women and men and discrimination in the European Union, 3rd edn. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Favilli C (2008) La non discriminazione nel diritto dell’Unione Europea. Il Mulino, Bologna
Gaja G (1984) Constitutional Court (Italy), Decision No. 170 of 8 June 1984, S.p.a. Granital v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato. Common Mark Law Rev 21:756–772
Gallo D et al (eds) (2014) Same-sex couples before national, supranational and international jurisdictions. Springer, Heidelberg
Goudappel F (2010) The effects of EU citizenship: economic, social and political rights in a time of constitutional change. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Guild E et al (eds) (2009) Illiberal liberal states: immigration, citizenship and integration in the EU. Ashgate, Burlington
Hailbronner K, Thym D (2011) Annotation Case C-34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office National de l’emploi (ONEM). Common Mark Law Rev 48:1253–1270
Hernu R (2003) Principe d’égalité et principe de non-discrimination dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice des Communautés Européennes. LGDJ, Paris
Howard E (2009) The EU race directive: developing the protection against racial discrimination within the EU. Routledge, New York
Kochenov D, Plender R (2012) EU citizenship: from an incipient form to an incipient substance? The discovery of the treaty text. Eur Law Rev 37:369–396
Lansbergen A, Miller N (2011) European citizenship rights in internal situations: an ambiguous revolution? Decision of 8 March 2011, Case C-34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi. Eur Const Law Rev 7:287–307
Lazzerini N (2015) “Please Handle with Care!”—some considerations on the approach of the European court of justice to the direct effect of general principles of EU law. In: Pineschi L (ed) The general principles of law—the role of the judiciary. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 145–168
Lenaerts K (2013) The principle of equal treatment and the European court of justice. Il Diritto dell’Unione Europea 18:461–482
Mancini GF (1998) Europe: the case for statehood. Eur Law J 4:29–42
Maron F, Pozarlik G (eds) (2012) Identités citoyennetés et démocratie : 20 ans après. Bruylant, Brussels
Martin D (2006) Egalité et non-discrimination dans la jurisprudence communautaire : Etude critique à la lumière d’une approche comparatiste. Bruylant, Brussels
Martin D (2011) L’actualité de la jurisprudence européenne et internationale. La Cour de justice et les situations internes à un État membre : vive la révolution? Revue de jurisprudence sociale 1:450–452
Mengozzi P (2011) La sentenza Zambrano: Prodromi e conseguenze di una pronuncia inattesa. Studi sull’integrazione europea 2:417–432
More G (1999) The principle of equal treatment: from market unifier to fundamental right? In: Craig P, de Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 517–553
Morris R (2011) European citizenship and the right to move freely: internal situations, reverse discrimination and fundamental rights. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 18:179–189
Nic Shuibhne N (2010) The resilience of EU market citizenship. Common Mark Law Rev 47:1597–1628
Peers S (2015) Benefits for EU citizens: A U-Turn by the court of justice. Camb Law J 2:195–198
Poiares Maduro M (2005) The European court of justice and anti-discrimination law. Anti-Discrim Law Rev 2:21–26
Prechal S (2000) Does direct effect still matter? Common Mark Law Rev 37:1047–1069
Prechal S (2004) Equality of treatment, non-discrimination and social policy: achievements in three themes. Common Mark Law Rev 41:533–551
Prechal S, Burrows N (1990) Gender discrimination law of the European community. Dartmouth Publishing Company, Brookfield
Rossi LS (2010) La sentenza del Bundesverfassungsgericht sul Trattato di Lisbona e le implicazioni sul processo di integrazione europea. In: Rossi LS, Baroncini E (eds) Rapporti fra ordinamenti e diritti dei singoli: Studi degli allievi di Paolo Mengozzi. Editoriale Scientifica, Naples, pp 91–115
Rossi LS (2016) ‘Stesso valore giuridico dei Trattati’? Rango, primato ed effetti diretti della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea. Il Diritto dell’Unione Europea 2:329–356
Schiek D (2005) Broadening the scope and the norms of EU gender equality law: towards a multidimensional conception of equality law. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 12:427–466
Solanke I (2012) Using the citizen to bring the refugee In: Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM). Mod Law Rev 75:101–111
Strazzari D (2008) Discriminazione razziale e diritto: Un’indagine comparata per un modello “europeo” dell’antidiscriminazione. CEDAM, Padua
Tryfonidou A (2009) Reverse discrimination in EC law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Van Elsuwege P, Kochenov D (2011) On the limits of judicial intervention: EU citizenship and family reunification rights. Eur J Migr Law 13:443–466
Ventura M (2011) Law and religion issues in Strasbourg and Luxembourg: the virtues of European courts. ReligioWest Kick-Off Meeting Conference Paper, http://www.eui.eu/Projects/ReligioWest/Documents/events/conferencePapers/Ventura.pdf. Accessed 31 Dec 2016
Verschueren H (2015) Preventing “benefit tourism” in the EU: A narrow or broad interpretation of the possibilities offered by the ECJ in Dano? Common Mark Law Rev 2:363–390
Vickers L (2007) Religion and belief discrimination in employment: the EU law. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
Weiler JHH (2011) The political and legal culture of European integration: an exploratory essay. Int J Comp Law 9:678–694
Wintemute R (1997) Sexual orientation and human rights: the United States constitution, the European convention, and the Canadian charter. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Wintemute R, Andenæs M (eds) (2001) Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships: a study of national, European and international law. Hart, Oxford
Yetano M (2014) La dynamique du principe de proportionnalité—Essai dans le contexte des libertés de circulation du droit de l’Union européenne. Institut Universitaire Varenne, Clermont-Ferrand
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zaccaroni, G. (2017). Differentiating Equality? The Different Advancements in the Protected Grounds in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice. In: Rossi, L., Casolari, F. (eds) The Principle of Equality in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66137-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66137-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66136-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66137-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)