Judicial review in equal treatment cases: by J.H. Gerards
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | English Dutch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Leiden [u.a.]
Nijhoff
2005
|
| Schriftenreihe: | International studies in human rights
83 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| Beschreibung: | Zugl.: Maastricht, Univ., Diss., 2002 u.d.T.: Gerards, Janneke H.: Rechterlijke toetsing aan het gelijkheidsbeginsel Includes bibliographical references (p. [743]-759) and index |
| Beschreibung: | XVI, 767 S. |
| ISBN: | 9004143793 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000zcb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV020848906 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20160113 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 051027s2005 ne m||| 00||| eng d | ||
| 010 | |a 2005042157 | ||
| 020 | |a 9004143793 |c alk. paper |9 90-04-14379-3 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)238673514 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV020848906 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e aacr | ||
| 041 | 1 | |a eng |h dut | |
| 044 | |a ne |c NL | ||
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-355 | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a K3242 | |
| 082 | 0 | |a 342.085 | |
| 084 | |a PI 3600 |0 (DE-625)136615: |2 rvk | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Gerards, J. H. |d 1976- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)132734362 |4 aut | |
| 240 | 1 | 0 | |a Rechterlijke toetsing aan het gelijkheidsbeginsel |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Judicial review in equal treatment cases |b by J.H. Gerards |
| 264 | 1 | |a Leiden [u.a.] |b Nijhoff |c 2005 | |
| 300 | |a XVI, 767 S. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a International studies in human rights |v 83 | |
| 500 | |a Zugl.: Maastricht, Univ., Diss., 2002 u.d.T.: Gerards, Janneke H.: Rechterlijke toetsing aan het gelijkheidsbeginsel | ||
| 500 | |a Includes bibliographical references (p. [743]-759) and index | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Discrimination - Law and legislation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Equality before the law | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Judicial process | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Recht | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Discrimination |x Law and legislation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Equality before the law | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Judicial process | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Rechtsprechung |0 (DE-588)4115710-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Gleichheitssatz |0 (DE-588)4071878-5 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 655 | 7 | |0 (DE-588)4113937-9 |a Hochschulschrift |2 gnd-content | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Gleichheitssatz |0 (DE-588)4071878-5 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Rechtsprechung |0 (DE-588)4115710-2 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a International studies in human rights |v 83 |w (DE-604)BV000016449 |9 83 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m GBV Datenaustausch |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014170644&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-014170644 | ||
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804134561288814592 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | JUDICIAL REVIEW IN EQUAL TREATMENT CASES BY J.H. GERARDS E.M. MEIIERS
INST1TUUT W NFL O MARTINUS NIJHOFF PUBLISHERS LEIDEN / BOSTON CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS XVII CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR A
GENERAL DECISION MODEL 1 JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT 1 2
PROBLEMS REGARDING THE JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY
4 3 THE NEED FOR WELL-REASONED DECISIONS ON UNEQUAL TREATMENT .... 5 4
THE DESIRABILITY OF DEVELOPING A DECISION MODEL 7 CHAPTER 2 A
THEORETICAL MODEL FOR JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING ON THE PRINCIPLE OF
EQUALITY 1 DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS 9 1.1 EQUALITY, COMPARABILITY,
DIFFERENTIATION AND DISCRIMINATION 9 1.1.1 THE ARISTOTELIAN EQUALITY
FORMULA 9 1.1.2 DISTINCTION, UNEQUAL TREATMENT, DIFFERENTIATION,
CLASSIFICATION AND DISCRIMINATION 11 1.2 FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE
INEQUALITY; DIRECT AND INDIRECT INEQUALITY 12 1.2.1 FORMAI AND
SUBSTANTIVE INEQUALITY 12 1.2.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT
INEQUALITY*RELATIONSHIP OF THESE CONCEPTS TO FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE
INEQUALITY 13 1.2.3 OTHER CONCEPTS 14 2 SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE
DECISION MODEL 16 2.1 INTRODUCTION 16 2.2 OPEN AND CLOSED MODELS 16 2.3
SITUATIONS WHERE A COMPLAINT CAN BE MADE ABOUT UNEQUAL TREATMENT 18
2.3.1 SITUATIONS OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT 18 2.3.2 CONSEQUENCES FOR THE
ASSESSMENT METHODS 21 2.4 MANIFESTATIONS OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT: FORMAI OR
SUBSTANTIVE, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL 22 2.5
GROUND OF DISTINCTION 25 2.6 APPLICABILITY IN HORIZONTAL RELATIONSHIPS
26 3 CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT MODEL 28 3.1 GENERAL REMARKS 28 3.1.1
INTRODUCTION 28 VI CONTENTS 3.1.2 PHASES OF THE ASSESSMENT 28 3.1.3
DESIGN OF THE JUSTIFICATION OR ASSESSMENT MODEL 30 3.1.4 PREFERENTIAL
TREATMENT 32 3.2 THE REQUIREMENT OF A LEGITIMATE AIM 32 3.2.1
INTRODUCTION: THE NEED TO ASSESS THE LEGITIMACY OF THE AIMS PURSUED 32
3.2.2 UNCOVERING THE AIM OF A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT .... 35 3.2.3 THE
SIMULTANEOUS SEARCH FOR DIFFERENT GOALS (PLURALITY OF OBJECTIVES) 39
3.2.4 SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE JUSTINABILITY OF THE AIMS PURSUED 42
3.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOAL AND MEANS 46 3.3.1
INTRODUCTION 46 3.3.2 OVER- AND UNDERINCLUSIVENESS, OR THE ASSESSMENT OF
THE DEGREE OF FIT 46 3.3.3 SUITABILITY 49 3.3.4 SUBSIDIARITY 51 3.3.5
PROPORTIONALITY IN THE STRICT SENSE (NARROW PROPORTIONALITY) 53 4 THE
TEST OF COMPARABILITY AND THE FIRST PHASE OF ASSESSMENT .... 57 4.1
CONTENT OF THE COMPARABILITY TEST 57 4.2 DETERMINING COMPARABILITY 58
4.2.1 INTRODUCTION 58 4.2.2 THE NEED TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD OF
COMPARISON .... 59 4.2.3 SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE STANDARD OF
COMPARISON 63 4.2.4 THE JUSTIFICATION MODEL AND THE COMPARABILITY TEST:
OVER- AND UNDERINCLUSIVENESS 65 4.3 THE SECOND PHASE OF THE ASSESSMENT:
DESIRABILITY OF THE CHOICE OF THE JUSTIFICATION MODEL 66 4.3.1
INTRODUCTION 66 4.3.2 THE DESIRABILITY OF THE CHOICE OF THE
JUSTIFICATION MODEL 69 4.3.3 CONCLUSION: NO COMPARABILITY TEST 72 4.4
THE EVIDENTIAL FUNCTION OF THE COMPARABILITY TEST; ALTERNATIVE TESTS 72
4.4.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE FIRST PHASE; APPORTIONMENT OF THE BURDEN OF
PROOF 72 4.4.2 FIRST ALTERNATIVE: TEST OF INTENT OR MOTIVE 74 4.4.3
SECOND ALTERNATIVE: THE BUT FOR CRITERION 75 4.4.4 THIRD ALTERNATIVE:
TEST OF DISADVANTAGE 76 4.4.5 CONCLUSION 79 CONTENTS VIL 5 THE INTENSITY
OF THE ASSESSMENT 79 5.1 INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR DIFFERENTIATION IN
THE INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 79 5.2 LEVELS OF INTENSITY AND THEIR
SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT 81 5.2.1 GRADATIONS OR LEVELS OF
INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 81 5.2.2 CONSEQUENCES OF THE CHOICE OF A
PARTICULAR LEVEL OF INTENSITY 82 5.3 FACTORS DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF
INTENSITY 84 5.3.1 INTRODUCTION 84 5.3.2 FACTORS DETERMINING THE LEVEL
OF INTENSITY 84 5.3.3 BALANCING THE DIFFERENT FACTORS AND DECIDING ON
THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 98 6 SUMMARY OF THE THEORETICAL ASSESSMENT MODEL
99 CHAPTER 3 ASSESSMENT AGAINST ARTICLE 14 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON
HUMAN RIGHTS BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1 GENERAL 103 1.1 THE
ACCESSORY NATURE OF THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION 103 1.1.1 THE WAY
IN VVHICH THE COURT HAS GIVEN SUBSTANCE TO THE ACCESSORY CHARACTER 103
1.1.2 DISADVANTAGES OF THE ACCESSORY CHARACTER 106 1.1.3 THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACCESSORY CHARACTER FOR THE ASSESSMENT METHODS 108
1.1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TWELFTH PROTOCOL 110 1.2 CONTENT AND SCOPE OF
THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION 111 1.2.1 GROUNDS FOR DISTINCTION;
REQUIREMENT OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF A PERSONAL
CHARACTERISTIC 111 1.2.2 DEALING WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF CLAIMS UNDER
ARTICLE 14 113 1.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT UNEQUAL TREATMENT; FORMAI AND
SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY 113 1.3.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT UNEQUAL TREATMENT 113
1.3.2 FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY 115 1.4 ONLY ASSESSMENT OF CLAIMS
DIRECTED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT 117 1.5 CASE-BASED ASSESSMENT BY THE
COURT 118 2 THE ASSESSMENT MODEL 121 2.1 DEVELOPMENT AND CONTENT OF THE
ASSESSMENT MODEL 121 2.2 COMPARABILITY AS A FIRST-PHASE TEST 127 MU
CONTENTS 2.2.1 ASSESSMENT STANDARDS WHEN JUDGING COMPARABILITY 127 2.2.2
OMISSION OF THE COMPARABILITY TEST IN SPECIFIE CASES 129 2.2.3 THE TEST
OF DISADVANTAGE AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR THE COMPARABILITY TEST 135 2.3
ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF A LEGITIMATE AIM 137 2.3.1 DETERMINING THE
AIM OF THE DISTINCTION 137 2.3.2 JUSTIFICATION OF THE AIMS PURSUED 140
2.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOAL AND MEANS:
PROPORTIONALITY IN THE BROAD SENSE 144 2.4.1 CONTENT AND APPLICATION OF
THE GOAL-MEANS TEST AND ARTICLE 14 144 2.4.2 APPLICATION OF THE
GOAL-MEANS TEST WITH RESPECT TO SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION
149 2.5 SUITABILITY 152 2.5.1 THE SUITABILITY TEST WITH RESPECT TO
SUBSTANTIVE CONVENTION PROVISIONS 152 2.5.2 THE SUITABILITY TEST WITH
RESPECT TO ARTICLE 14 153 2.6 SUBSIDIARITY AND NECESSITY 154 2.6.1
SUBSIDIARITY AND NECESSITY WITH RESPECT TO SUBSTANTIVE CONVENTION
PROVISIONS 154 2.6.2 SUBSIDIARITY AND NECESSITY WHEN ASSESSING AGAINST
ARTICLE 14 157 2.7 PROPORTIONALITY IN THE STRICT SENSE 160 2.8 A MISSING
CRITERION: ASSESSMENT OF OVER- AND UNDERINCLUSIVENESS 162 2.9 CONCLUSION
164 3 INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION 165 3.1
INTRODUCTION 165 3.1.1 CONTENT OF THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION DOCTRINE
165 3.1.2 BASIS FOR ACCEPTING THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION DOCTRINE 166
3.1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION FOR THE INTENSITY OF
THE ASSESSMENT 169 3.2 FACTORS DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE MARGIN OF
APPRECIATION 170 3.2.1 INTRODUCTION 170 3.2.2 THE COMMON GROUND
FACTOR: THE EXISTENCE OF A EUROPEAN CONSENSUS 171 3.2.3 THE BETTER
PLACED ARGUMENT 180 3.2.4 THE CHARACTER AND THE WEIGHT OF THE AIMS
PURSUED 182 3.2.5 CONTEXT OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION 185 CONTENTS IX
3.2.6 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE AFFECTED RIGHT: FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS AND
CORE RIGHTS 187 3.2.7 NATURE OF THE INTERFERENCE 192 3.2.8 BALANCING THE
INTENSITY-DETERMINING FACTORS 194 3.3 INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT AND
ARTICLE 14: THE VERY WEIGHTY REASONS DOCTRINE 199 3.3.1 TRANSLATING
THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION DOCTRINE INTO A VERY WEIGHTY REASONS DOCTRINE
199 3.3.2 CRITERION FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE VERY WEIGHTY REASONS
DOCTRINE: GROUND OF DISTINCTION 201 3.3.3 CONCLUSION 207 4 CONCLUSIONS
209 4.1 CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT METHODS 209 4.1.1
INTRODUCTION 209 4.1.2 ASSESSMENT IN THE FIRST PHASE: THE COMPARABILITY
TEST 210 4.1.3 THE SECOND PHASE OF THE ASSESSMENT: APPLICATION OF THE
JUSTIFICATION MODEL 215 4.2 CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE INTENSITY OF THE
ASSESSMENT 218 4.2.1 METHOD OF THE COURT, LEVELS OF INTENSITY AND
INFLUENCE ON THE ASSESSMENT METHODS 218 4.2.2 FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE
INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 220 CHAPTER 4 ASSESSMENT BY THE EUROPEAN
COURT OF JUSTICE AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY 1 GENERAL 223 1.1
CONTENT AND BACKGROUND OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IN COMMUNITY LAW 223
1.1.1 THE EC TREATY AND THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY 223 1.1.2 BACKGROUND
AND MEANING OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IN EUROPEAN LAW 224 1.2 DIRECT
AND INDIRECT DISTINCTIONS; FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE INEQUALITY 227 1.2.1
DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISTINCTIONS 227 1.2.2 FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE
INEQUALITY 230 1.3 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL RELATIONS 232 1.4 NATURE OF
THE PROCEDURE IN WHICH THE EQUALITY PRINCIPLE PLAYS A ROLE 235 1.5
STRUCTURE OF THIS CHAPTER 236 2 THE ASSESSMENT MODELS 238 2.1 GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT MODELS 238 2.1.1 THE ASSESSMENT MODEL WITH
DISTINCTIONS BASED ON GENDER 238 CONTENTS 2.1.2 THE ASSESSMENT MODEL FOR
DISTINCTIONS IN THE FIELD OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY 240 2.1.3
THE ASSESSMENT MODEL IN THE CASE OF DISTINCTIONS BASED ON NATIONALITY
245 2.2 THE FIRST PHASE OF ASSESSMENT: COMPARABILITY AND DISADVANTAGE
247 2.2.1 COMPARABILITY AND DISADVANTAGE WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT BASED ON
GENDER 247 2.2.2 COMPARABILITY AND DISADVANTAGE IN THE FIELD OF
AGRICULTURE 253 2.2.3 COMPARABILITY AND DISADVANTAGE WITH UNEQUAL
TREATMENT BASED ON NATIONALITY 260 2.2.4 APPLICATIONS OF THE
COMPARABILITY TEST WITH ARTICLE 90 EC 268 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE GOAL 270
2.3.1 ASSESSMENT OF THE GOAL WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT BASED ON GENDER 270
2.3.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE GOAL WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT IN THE FIELD OF
AGRICULTURE 277 2.3.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE GOAL WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT
BASED ON NATIONALITY 280 2.3.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE GOAL WITH ARTICLE 90 EC
283 2.3.5 CONCLUSIONS 286 2.4 ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY, SUBSIDIARITY
AND PROPORTIONALITY .... 287 2.4.1 ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY,
SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT BASED ON GENDER
287 2.4.2 ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY, NECESSITY AND PROPORTIONALITY WITH
UNEQUAL TREATMENT IN THE FIELD OF AGRICULTURE 290 2.4.3 ASSESSMENT OF
SUITABILITY, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT
BASED ON NATIONALITY 300 2.5 MISSING ELEMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT BY THE
ECJ: ASSESSMENT OF THE DEGREE OF FIT 305 3 INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT
307 3.1 GENERAL 307 3.2 INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT WITH UNEQUAL
TREATMENT BASED ON GENDER 308 3.2.1 INTRODUCTION 308 3.2.2 FACTORS THAT
DETERMINE THE INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 309 3.2.3 CONCLUSION 309 3.3
INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT IN THE FIELD OF
AGRICULTURE 320 CONTENTS XI 3.3.1 INTRODUCTION 320 3.3.2 FACTORS THAT
DETERMINE THE INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 321 3.3.3 CONCLUSION 329 3.4
INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT BASED ON NATIONALITY
330 3.4.1 NATURE AND WEIGHT OF THE PROHIBITION OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT
BASED ON NATIONALITY 330 3.4.2 FACTORS WHICH RESUIT IN REDUCED INTENSITY
OF THE ASSESSMENT 333 3.4.3 CONCLUSION 340 4 CONCLUSIONS 342 4.1
CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT METHOD 342 4.1.1 CONSEQUENCES OF
THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROHIBITION OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT 342 4.1.2
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL RELATIONS: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE ASSESSMENT
METHODS 345 4.1.3 ASSESSMENT IN THE FIRST PHASE: COMPARABILITY AND
DISADVANTAGE 346 4.1.4 THE GOAL OF THE DISTINCTION 352 4.1.5 DEGREE OF
FIT, SUITABILITY, NECESSITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 355 4.2 CONCLUSIONS
RELATING TO THE INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 357 4.2.1 GRADATIONS OR
LEVELS OF INTENSITY 357 4.2.2 FACTORS THAT PLAY A ROLE IN THE
DETERMINATION OF THE INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 359 CHAPTER 5
ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE BY THE SUPREME COURT 1
INTRODUCTION 365 1.1 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
365 1.1.1 DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 365
1.1.2 EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE TO INCLUDE INFRINGEMENTS OF AIL INTERESTS
AND RIGHTS 367 1.1.3 EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE FROM RACE TO OTHER GROUNDS
OF DISTINCTION 369 1.1.4 FORMAI OR SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY; DIRECT AND
INDIRECT DISTINCTIONS 371 1.1.5 APPLICABILITY OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE IN AIL SITUATIONS 374 1.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
AND THE STATES .... 375 1.2.1 CONSEQUENCES OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM FOR THE
SUPREME COURT S POSITION 375 CONTENTS 1.2.2 APPLICATION OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 376 1.3 HORIZONTAL EFFECT
379 1.3.1 THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE NECESSITY OF STATE ACTION 379
1.3.2 HORIZONTAL EFFECT: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1964 381 1.4 PROCEDURE OF
THE SUPREME COURT 383 1.5 ASSESSMENT METHODS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND
STRUCTURE OF THE CHAPTER 388 2 ASSESSMENT METHODS 389 2.1 GENERAL SURVEY
OF THE TESTS USED BY THE SUPREME COURT 389 2.1.1 THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST
389 2.1.2 RATIONAL BASIS WITH BITE 393 2.1.3 THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST
395 2.1.4 THE INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST 398 2.2 FIRST-PHASE ASSESSMENT:
COMPARABILITY, DISADVANTAGE AND INTENT 401 2.2.1 COMPARABILITY 401 2.2.2
DIRECT UNEQUAL TREATMENT: THE EXISTENCE OF A CLASSIFICATION AS A
FIRST-PHASE TEST 407 2.2.3 INDIRECT UNEQUAL TREATMENT: EFFECT AND INTENT
AS A FIRST-PHASE TEST 413 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF AJUSTIFIED
AIM 427 2.3.1 MANNER OF ESTABLISHING THE PURPOSE 427 2.3.2 PLURALITY OF
PURPOSES 434 2.3.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE LEGITIMACY OF THE PURPOSE 437 2.4
ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PURPOSE AND MEANS 448 2.4.1
INTRODUCTION 448 2.4.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE DEGREE OF FIT 448 2.4.3
ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY 453 2.4.4 ASSESSMENT OF NECESSITY AND
SUBSIDIARITY 457 2.4.5 ASSESSMENT OF PROPORTIONALITY IN THE STRICT SENSE
460 3 INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 465 3.1 INTRODUCTION 465 3.2
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING OF DIFFERENTIATION IN THE INTENSITY OF THE
ASSESSMENT 467 3.3 FACTORS RELATING TO THE DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT 470
3.3.1 FACTORS RELATING TO THE DISADVANTAGED GROUP 470 3.3.2 FACTORS
RELATING TO THE GROUND OF DISTINCTION 479 3.3.3 BALANCING OF FACTORS
RELATING TO THE DISTINCTION AS SUCH 482 CONTENTS XLLL 3.4 IMPAIRMENT OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AS JUSTIFICATION FOR STRICT SCRUTINY 486 3.4.1
RECOGNITION OF INDIVIDUAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AS JUSTIFICATION FOR STRICT
SCRUTINY 486 3.4.2 RECOGNITION OF POLITICAL RIGHTS AS JUSTIFICATION FOR
STRICT SCRUTINY 488 3.4.3 CHANGES IN THE CASE LAW: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
AS BASIS FOR HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY 490 3.4.4 SERIOUSNESS OF THE IMPAIRMENT
493 3.5 OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 495 3.5.1
INTRODUCTION 495 3.5.2 PRESENCE OF DISCRETION, NATURE OF THE POLICY
FIELD AND THE BETTER PLACED ARGUMENT 496 3.5.3 CONTEXT OF THE
DISTINCTION 497 3.5.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT; SUBSIDIARITY ARGUMENT 499 3.5.5 DISTINCTIONS OF AN UNUSUAL
CHARACTER 501 4 CONCLUSIONS 502 4.1 CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE
ASSESSMENT METHODS 502 4.1.1 INTRODUCTION 502 4.1.2 ASSESSMENT IN THE
FIRST PHASE: COMPARABILITY, DISADVANTAGE AND INTENT 502 4.1.3 ASSESSMENT
OF THE PURPOSE 506 4.1.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PURPOSE
AND MEANS 508 4.2 CONCLUSIONS IN RESPECT OF THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 511
4.2.1 LEVELS OF INTENSITY 511 4.2.2 FACTORS DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF
INTENSITY 513 CHAPTER 6 ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IN
THE NETHERLANDS 1 GENERAL 517 1.1 EQUALITY PROVISIONS IN DUTCH LAW 517
1.1.1 INTRODUCTION 517 1.1.2 ARTICLE 1 OF THE DUTCH CONSTITUTION 518
1.1.3 EQUALITY PROVISIONS IN INTERNATIONAL TREATIES 519 1.1.4 EQUALITY
PROVISIONS IN EUROPEAN LAW 522 1.1.5 EQUALITY PROVISIONS IN DUTCH
LEGISLATION 523 1.1.6 THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY AS GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF
PROPER ADMINISTRATION 525 1.2 SITUATIONS IN WHICH DISTINCTIONS ARE MADE
528 1.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISTINCTIONS; FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE
INEQUALITY 529 CONTENTS 1.3.1 FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE INEQUALITY 529
1.3.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISTINCTIONS 531 1.4 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL
EFFECT 534 1.5 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS COMPETENT TO
ASSESS UNEQUAL TREATMENT; STRUCTURE OF THE CHAPTER 537 ASSESSMENT
METHODS 540 2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS OF THE VARIOUS COURTS
ANALYSED 540 2.1.1 ASSESSMENT METHODS OF THE DUTCH SUPREME COURT*CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL DIVISIONS 540 2.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE DUTCH SUPREME
COURT*TAX DIVISION 546 2.1.3 ASSESSMENT METHODS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW DIVISION 554 2.1.4 ASSESSMENT METHODS OF THE CENTRAL APPEALS
TRIBUNAL 556 2.1.5 ASSESSMENT METHODS OF THE EQUAL TREATMENT COMMISSION
561 2.2 COMPARABILITY AND DISADVANTAGE IN DUTCH CASE LAW 564 2.2.1
INTRODUCTION 564 2.2.2 THE COMPARABILITY TEST AS FIRST-PHASE TEST 565
2.2.3 THE DISADVANTAGE TEST AS A FIRST-PHASE TEST 573 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF
THE AIM 586 2.3.1 INTRODUCTION 586 2.3.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AIM 587
2.3.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE JUSTIFIABILITY OF THE AIM 593 2.4 ASSESSMENT OF
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AIM AND DISTINCTION 608 2.4.1 DEGREE OF FIT
(OVER- AND UNDERINCLUSIVENESS) AND ASSESSMENT OF THE PROXY 608 2.4.2
SUITABILITY 614 2.4.3 NECESSITY AND SUBSIDIARITY 616 2.4.4
PROPORTIONALITY IN THE STRICT SENSE 622 INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 630
3.1 VARIATION IN THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY IN THE NETHERLANDS 630 3.2
FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 634 3.2.1 INTRODUCTION 634
3.2.2 FACTORS THAT RELATE TO THE DIVISION OF POWERS 634 3.2.3 OTHER
FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 640 3.2.4 THE BALANCING
OF THE VARIOUS FACTORS 646 CONCLUSIONS 647 CONTENTS XV 4.1 CONCLUSIONS
RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT METHOD 647 4.1.1 FIRST-PHASE ASSESSMENT:
COMPARABILITY AND DISADVANTAGE 647 4.1.2 SECOND-PHASE ASSESSMENT: THE
JUSTIFICATION TEST 651 4.2 CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE LEVEL OF
INTENSITY 656 4.2.1 VARIATION IN THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 656 4.2.2
FACTORS DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 657 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION:
TOWARDS A GENERAL ASSESSMENT MODEL 1 INTRODUCTION 659 2 FIRST-PHASE
ASSESSMENT: DISADVANTAGE AS A FIRST-PHASE TEST 662 2.1 INTRODUCTION 662
2.2 THE COMPARABILITY TEST AS FIRST-PHASE TEST 663 2.3 THE TEST OF
INTENT AS FIRST-PHASE TEST 667 2.4 THE TEST OF DISADVANTAGE AS
FIRST-PHASE TEST 669 2.4.1 THE DISADVANTAGE TEST AS FIRST-PHASE TEST FOR
THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT MODEL 669 2.4.2 STRUCTURE OF THE TEST OF
DISADVANTAGE 670 3 SECOND-PHASE ASSESSMENT: THE JUSTIFICATION MODEL 675
3.1 THE PURPOSE TEST 675 3.1.1 INTRODUCTION 675 3.1.2 DETERMINATION OF
THE PURPOSE OF THE DISTINCTION 676 3.1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE
JUSTIFIABILITY OF THE PURPOSE 679 3.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROXY USED AND
OF THE DEGREE OF FIT 683 3.2.1 INTRODUCTION 683 3.2.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE
PROXY 684 3.2.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE DEGREE OF FIT 685 3.3 SUITABILITY 687
3.4 SUBSIDIARITY AND NECESSITY 688 3.5 PROPORTIONALITY 691 3.5.1
ABSTRACT OR CONCRETE ASSESSMENT? 691 3.5.2 STRUCTURE OF THE
PROPORTIONALITY TEST; DETERMINATION OF INTERESTS 692 3.5.3 WEIGHT OF THE
INTERESTS INVOLVED 693 3.5.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE BALANCE OF INTERESTS 695
4 LEVEL OF INTENSITY 696 4.1 INTRODUCTION: LEVELS OF INTENSITY 696 4.2
THE FACTORS DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 700 4.2.1 GROUP 1.
FACTORS THAT CONCERN THE DISTINCTION AS SUCH 700 4.2.2 GROUP 2. FACTORS
RELATING TO THE IMPAIRMENT OF INTERESTS 703 XVI CONTENTS 4.2.3 GROUP 3.
FACTORS RELATING TO THE INTEREST PURSUED, THE POLICY FIELD AND POSITION
OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY 707 5 BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE ASSESSMENT MODEL 711
APPENDICES CASE LAW 719 BIBLIOGRAPHY 743 INDEX 761
|
| adam_txt |
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN EQUAL TREATMENT CASES BY J.H. GERARDS E.M. ' MEIIERS
INST1TUUT W NFL'O MARTINUS NIJHOFF PUBLISHERS LEIDEN / BOSTON CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS XVII CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR A
GENERAL DECISION MODEL 1 JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT 1 2
PROBLEMS REGARDING THE JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY
4 3 THE NEED FOR WELL-REASONED DECISIONS ON UNEQUAL TREATMENT . 5 4
THE DESIRABILITY OF DEVELOPING A DECISION MODEL 7 CHAPTER 2 A
THEORETICAL MODEL FOR JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING ON THE PRINCIPLE OF
EQUALITY 1 DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS 9 1.1 EQUALITY, COMPARABILITY,
DIFFERENTIATION AND DISCRIMINATION 9 1.1.1 THE ARISTOTELIAN EQUALITY
FORMULA 9 1.1.2 DISTINCTION, UNEQUAL TREATMENT, DIFFERENTIATION,
CLASSIFICATION AND DISCRIMINATION 11 1.2 FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE
INEQUALITY; DIRECT AND INDIRECT INEQUALITY 12 1.2.1 FORMAI AND
SUBSTANTIVE INEQUALITY 12 1.2.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT
INEQUALITY*RELATIONSHIP OF THESE CONCEPTS TO FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE
INEQUALITY 13 1.2.3 OTHER CONCEPTS 14 2 SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE
DECISION MODEL 16 2.1 INTRODUCTION 16 2.2 OPEN AND CLOSED MODELS 16 2.3
SITUATIONS WHERE A COMPLAINT CAN BE MADE ABOUT UNEQUAL TREATMENT 18
2.3.1 SITUATIONS OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT 18 2.3.2 CONSEQUENCES FOR THE
ASSESSMENT METHODS 21 2.4 MANIFESTATIONS OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT: FORMAI OR
SUBSTANTIVE, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL 22 2.5
GROUND OF DISTINCTION 25 2.6 APPLICABILITY IN HORIZONTAL RELATIONSHIPS
26 3 CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT MODEL 28 3.1 GENERAL REMARKS 28 3.1.1
INTRODUCTION 28 VI CONTENTS 3.1.2 PHASES OF THE ASSESSMENT 28 3.1.3
DESIGN OF THE JUSTIFICATION OR ASSESSMENT MODEL 30 3.1.4 PREFERENTIAL
TREATMENT 32 3.2 THE REQUIREMENT OF A LEGITIMATE AIM 32 3.2.1
INTRODUCTION: THE NEED TO ASSESS THE LEGITIMACY OF THE AIMS PURSUED 32
3.2.2 UNCOVERING THE AIM OF A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT . 35 3.2.3 THE
SIMULTANEOUS SEARCH FOR DIFFERENT GOALS (PLURALITY OF OBJECTIVES) 39
3.2.4 SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE JUSTINABILITY OF THE AIMS PURSUED 42
3.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOAL AND MEANS 46 3.3.1
INTRODUCTION 46 3.3.2 OVER- AND UNDERINCLUSIVENESS, OR THE ASSESSMENT OF
THE DEGREE OF FIT 46 3.3.3 SUITABILITY 49 3.3.4 SUBSIDIARITY 51 3.3.5
PROPORTIONALITY IN THE STRICT SENSE (NARROW PROPORTIONALITY) 53 4 THE
TEST OF COMPARABILITY AND THE FIRST PHASE OF ASSESSMENT . 57 4.1
CONTENT OF THE COMPARABILITY TEST 57 4.2 DETERMINING COMPARABILITY 58
4.2.1 INTRODUCTION 58 4.2.2 THE NEED TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD OF
COMPARISON . 59 4.2.3 SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE STANDARD OF
COMPARISON 63 4.2.4 THE JUSTIFICATION MODEL AND THE COMPARABILITY TEST:
OVER- AND UNDERINCLUSIVENESS 65 4.3 THE SECOND PHASE OF THE ASSESSMENT:
DESIRABILITY OF THE CHOICE OF THE JUSTIFICATION MODEL 66 4.3.1
INTRODUCTION 66 4.3.2 THE DESIRABILITY OF THE CHOICE OF THE
JUSTIFICATION MODEL 69 4.3.3 CONCLUSION: NO COMPARABILITY TEST 72 4.4
THE EVIDENTIAL FUNCTION OF THE COMPARABILITY TEST; ALTERNATIVE TESTS 72
4.4.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE FIRST PHASE; APPORTIONMENT OF THE BURDEN OF
PROOF 72 4.4.2 FIRST ALTERNATIVE: TEST OF INTENT OR MOTIVE 74 4.4.3
SECOND ALTERNATIVE: THE 'BUT FOR' CRITERION 75 4.4.4 THIRD ALTERNATIVE:
TEST OF DISADVANTAGE 76 4.4.5 CONCLUSION 79 CONTENTS VIL 5 THE INTENSITY
OF THE ASSESSMENT 79 5.1 INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR DIFFERENTIATION IN
THE INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 79 5.2 'LEVELS' OF INTENSITY AND THEIR
SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT 81 5.2.1 GRADATIONS OR 'LEVELS' OF
INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 81 5.2.2 CONSEQUENCES OF THE CHOICE OF A
PARTICULAR LEVEL OF INTENSITY 82 5.3 FACTORS DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF
INTENSITY 84 5.3.1 INTRODUCTION 84 5.3.2 FACTORS DETERMINING THE LEVEL
OF INTENSITY 84 5.3.3 BALANCING THE DIFFERENT FACTORS AND DECIDING ON
THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 98 6 SUMMARY OF THE THEORETICAL ASSESSMENT MODEL
99 CHAPTER 3 ASSESSMENT AGAINST ARTICLE 14 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON
HUMAN RIGHTS BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1 GENERAL 103 1.1 THE
ACCESSORY NATURE OF THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION 103 1.1.1 THE WAY
IN VVHICH THE COURT HAS GIVEN SUBSTANCE TO THE ACCESSORY CHARACTER 103
1.1.2 DISADVANTAGES OF THE ACCESSORY CHARACTER 106 1.1.3 THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACCESSORY CHARACTER FOR THE ASSESSMENT METHODS 108
1.1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TWELFTH PROTOCOL 110 1.2 CONTENT AND SCOPE OF
THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION 111 1.2.1 GROUNDS FOR DISTINCTION;
REQUIREMENT OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF A PERSONAL
CHARACTERISTIC 111 1.2.2 DEALING WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF CLAIMS UNDER
ARTICLE 14 113 1.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT UNEQUAL TREATMENT; FORMAI AND
SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY 113 1.3.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT UNEQUAL TREATMENT 113
1.3.2 FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY 115 1.4 ONLY ASSESSMENT OF CLAIMS
DIRECTED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT 117 1.5 CASE-BASED ASSESSMENT BY THE
COURT 118 2 THE ASSESSMENT MODEL 121 2.1 DEVELOPMENT AND CONTENT OF THE
ASSESSMENT MODEL 121 2.2 COMPARABILITY AS A FIRST-PHASE TEST 127 MU
CONTENTS 2.2.1 ASSESSMENT STANDARDS WHEN JUDGING COMPARABILITY 127 2.2.2
OMISSION OF THE COMPARABILITY TEST IN SPECIFIE CASES 129 2.2.3 THE TEST
OF DISADVANTAGE AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR THE COMPARABILITY TEST 135 2.3
ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF A LEGITIMATE AIM 137 2.3.1 DETERMINING THE
AIM OF THE DISTINCTION 137 2.3.2 JUSTIFICATION OF THE AIMS PURSUED 140
2.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOAL AND MEANS:
PROPORTIONALITY IN THE BROAD SENSE 144 2.4.1 CONTENT AND APPLICATION OF
THE GOAL-MEANS TEST AND ARTICLE 14 144 2.4.2 APPLICATION OF THE
GOAL-MEANS TEST WITH RESPECT TO SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION
149 2.5 SUITABILITY 152 2.5.1 THE SUITABILITY TEST WITH RESPECT TO
SUBSTANTIVE CONVENTION PROVISIONS 152 2.5.2 THE SUITABILITY TEST WITH
RESPECT TO ARTICLE 14 153 2.6 SUBSIDIARITY AND NECESSITY 154 2.6.1
SUBSIDIARITY AND NECESSITY WITH RESPECT TO SUBSTANTIVE CONVENTION
PROVISIONS 154 2.6.2 SUBSIDIARITY AND NECESSITY WHEN ASSESSING AGAINST
ARTICLE 14 157 2.7 PROPORTIONALITY IN THE STRICT SENSE 160 2.8 A MISSING
CRITERION: ASSESSMENT OF OVER- AND UNDERINCLUSIVENESS 162 2.9 CONCLUSION
164 3 INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION 165 3.1
INTRODUCTION 165 3.1.1 CONTENT OF THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION DOCTRINE
165 3.1.2 BASIS FOR ACCEPTING THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION DOCTRINE 166
3.1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION FOR THE INTENSITY OF
THE ASSESSMENT 169 3.2 FACTORS DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE MARGIN OF
APPRECIATION 170 3.2.1 INTRODUCTION 170 3.2.2 THE "COMMON GROUND"
FACTOR: THE EXISTENCE OF A EUROPEAN CONSENSUS 171 3.2.3 THE "BETTER
PLACED" ARGUMENT 180 3.2.4 THE CHARACTER AND THE WEIGHT OF THE AIMS
PURSUED 182 3.2.5 CONTEXT OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION 185 CONTENTS IX
3.2.6 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE AFFECTED RIGHT: FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS AND
CORE RIGHTS 187 3.2.7 NATURE OF THE INTERFERENCE 192 3.2.8 BALANCING THE
INTENSITY-DETERMINING FACTORS 194 3.3 INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT AND
ARTICLE 14: THE "VERY WEIGHTY REASONS" DOCTRINE 199 3.3.1 TRANSLATING
THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION DOCTRINE INTO A VERY WEIGHTY REASONS DOCTRINE
199 3.3.2 CRITERION FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE VERY WEIGHTY REASONS
DOCTRINE: GROUND OF DISTINCTION 201 3.3.3 CONCLUSION 207 4 CONCLUSIONS
209 4.1 CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT METHODS 209 4.1.1
INTRODUCTION 209 4.1.2 ASSESSMENT IN THE FIRST PHASE: THE COMPARABILITY
TEST 210 4.1.3 THE SECOND PHASE OF THE ASSESSMENT: APPLICATION OF THE
JUSTIFICATION MODEL 215 4.2 CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE INTENSITY OF THE
ASSESSMENT 218 4.2.1 METHOD OF THE COURT, LEVELS OF INTENSITY AND
INFLUENCE ON THE ASSESSMENT METHODS 218 4.2.2 FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE
INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 220 CHAPTER 4 ASSESSMENT BY THE EUROPEAN
COURT OF JUSTICE AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY 1 GENERAL 223 1.1
CONTENT AND BACKGROUND OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IN COMMUNITY LAW 223
1.1.1 THE EC TREATY AND THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY 223 1.1.2 BACKGROUND
AND MEANING OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IN EUROPEAN LAW 224 1.2 DIRECT
AND INDIRECT DISTINCTIONS; FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE INEQUALITY 227 1.2.1
DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISTINCTIONS 227 1.2.2 FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE
INEQUALITY 230 1.3 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL RELATIONS 232 1.4 NATURE OF
THE PROCEDURE IN WHICH THE EQUALITY PRINCIPLE PLAYS A ROLE 235 1.5
STRUCTURE OF THIS CHAPTER 236 2 THE ASSESSMENT MODELS 238 2.1 GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT MODELS 238 2.1.1 THE ASSESSMENT MODEL WITH
DISTINCTIONS BASED ON GENDER 238 CONTENTS 2.1.2 THE ASSESSMENT MODEL FOR
DISTINCTIONS IN THE FIELD OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY 240 2.1.3
THE ASSESSMENT MODEL IN THE CASE OF DISTINCTIONS BASED ON NATIONALITY
245 2.2 THE FIRST PHASE OF ASSESSMENT: COMPARABILITY AND DISADVANTAGE
247 2.2.1 COMPARABILITY AND DISADVANTAGE WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT BASED ON
GENDER 247 2.2.2 COMPARABILITY AND DISADVANTAGE IN THE FIELD OF
AGRICULTURE 253 2.2.3 COMPARABILITY AND DISADVANTAGE WITH UNEQUAL
TREATMENT BASED ON NATIONALITY 260 2.2.4 APPLICATIONS OF THE
COMPARABILITY TEST WITH ARTICLE 90 EC 268 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE GOAL 270
2.3.1 ASSESSMENT OF THE GOAL WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT BASED ON GENDER 270
2.3.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE GOAL WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT IN THE FIELD OF
AGRICULTURE 277 2.3.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE GOAL WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT
BASED ON NATIONALITY 280 2.3.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE GOAL WITH ARTICLE 90 EC
283 2.3.5 CONCLUSIONS 286 2.4 ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY, SUBSIDIARITY
AND PROPORTIONALITY . 287 2.4.1 ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY,
SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT BASED ON GENDER
287 2.4.2 ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY, NECESSITY AND PROPORTIONALITY WITH
UNEQUAL TREATMENT IN THE FIELD OF AGRICULTURE 290 2.4.3 ASSESSMENT OF
SUITABILITY, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT
BASED ON NATIONALITY 300 2.5 MISSING ELEMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT BY THE
ECJ: ASSESSMENT OF THE DEGREE OF FIT 305 3 INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT
307 3.1 GENERAL 307 3.2 INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT WITH UNEQUAL
TREATMENT BASED ON GENDER 308 3.2.1 INTRODUCTION 308 3.2.2 FACTORS THAT
DETERMINE THE INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 309 3.2.3 CONCLUSION 309 3.3
INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT IN THE FIELD OF
AGRICULTURE 320 CONTENTS XI 3.3.1 INTRODUCTION 320 3.3.2 FACTORS THAT
DETERMINE THE INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 321 3.3.3 CONCLUSION 329 3.4
INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT WITH UNEQUAL TREATMENT BASED ON NATIONALITY
330 3.4.1 NATURE AND WEIGHT OF THE PROHIBITION OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT
BASED ON NATIONALITY 330 3.4.2 FACTORS WHICH RESUIT IN REDUCED INTENSITY
OF THE ASSESSMENT 333 3.4.3 CONCLUSION 340 4 CONCLUSIONS 342 4.1
CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT METHOD 342 4.1.1 CONSEQUENCES OF
THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROHIBITION OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT 342 4.1.2
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL RELATIONS: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE ASSESSMENT
METHODS 345 4.1.3 ASSESSMENT IN THE FIRST PHASE: COMPARABILITY AND
DISADVANTAGE 346 4.1.4 THE GOAL OF THE DISTINCTION 352 4.1.5 DEGREE OF
FIT, SUITABILITY, NECESSITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 355 4.2 CONCLUSIONS
RELATING TO THE INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 357 4.2.1 GRADATIONS OR
LEVELS OF INTENSITY 357 4.2.2 FACTORS THAT PLAY A ROLE IN THE
DETERMINATION OF THE INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 359 CHAPTER 5
ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE BY THE SUPREME COURT 1
INTRODUCTION 365 1.1 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
365 1.1.1 DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 365
1.1.2 EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE TO INCLUDE INFRINGEMENTS OF AIL INTERESTS
AND RIGHTS 367 1.1.3 EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE FROM RACE TO OTHER GROUNDS
OF DISTINCTION 369 1.1.4 FORMAI OR SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY; DIRECT AND
INDIRECT DISTINCTIONS 371 1.1.5 APPLICABILITY OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE IN AIL SITUATIONS 374 1.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
AND THE STATES . 375 1.2.1 CONSEQUENCES OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM FOR THE
SUPREME COURT'S POSITION 375 CONTENTS 1.2.2 APPLICATION OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 376 1.3 HORIZONTAL EFFECT
379 1.3.1 THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE NECESSITY OF STATE ACTION 379
1.3.2 HORIZONTAL EFFECT: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1964 381 1.4 PROCEDURE OF
THE SUPREME COURT 383 1.5 ASSESSMENT METHODS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND
STRUCTURE OF THE CHAPTER 388 2 ASSESSMENT METHODS 389 2.1 GENERAL SURVEY
OF THE TESTS USED BY THE SUPREME COURT 389 2.1.1 THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST
389 2.1.2 RATIONAL BASIS "WITH BITE" 393 2.1.3 THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST
395 2.1.4 THE INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST 398 2.2 FIRST-PHASE ASSESSMENT:
COMPARABILITY, DISADVANTAGE AND INTENT 401 2.2.1 COMPARABILITY 401 2.2.2
DIRECT UNEQUAL TREATMENT: THE EXISTENCE OF A CLASSIFICATION AS A
FIRST-PHASE TEST 407 2.2.3 INDIRECT UNEQUAL TREATMENT: EFFECT AND INTENT
AS A FIRST-PHASE TEST 413 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF AJUSTIFIED
AIM 427 2.3.1 MANNER OF ESTABLISHING THE PURPOSE 427 2.3.2 PLURALITY OF
PURPOSES 434 2.3.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE LEGITIMACY OF THE PURPOSE 437 2.4
ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PURPOSE AND MEANS 448 2.4.1
INTRODUCTION 448 2.4.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE DEGREE OF FIT 448 2.4.3
ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY 453 2.4.4 ASSESSMENT OF NECESSITY AND
SUBSIDIARITY 457 2.4.5 ASSESSMENT OF PROPORTIONALITY IN THE STRICT SENSE
460 3 INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 465 3.1 INTRODUCTION 465 3.2
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING OF DIFFERENTIATION IN THE INTENSITY OF THE
ASSESSMENT 467 3.3 FACTORS RELATING TO THE DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT 470
3.3.1 FACTORS RELATING TO THE DISADVANTAGED GROUP 470 3.3.2 FACTORS
RELATING TO THE GROUND OF DISTINCTION 479 3.3.3 BALANCING OF FACTORS
RELATING TO THE DISTINCTION AS SUCH 482 CONTENTS XLLL 3.4 IMPAIRMENT OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AS JUSTIFICATION FOR STRICT SCRUTINY 486 3.4.1
RECOGNITION OF INDIVIDUAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AS JUSTIFICATION FOR STRICT
SCRUTINY 486 3.4.2 RECOGNITION OF POLITICAL RIGHTS AS JUSTIFICATION FOR
STRICT SCRUTINY 488 3.4.3 CHANGES IN THE CASE LAW: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
AS BASIS FOR HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY 490 3.4.4 SERIOUSNESS OF THE IMPAIRMENT
493 3.5 OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 495 3.5.1
INTRODUCTION 495 3.5.2 PRESENCE OF DISCRETION, NATURE OF THE POLICY
FIELD AND THE BETTER PLACED ARGUMENT 496 3.5.3 CONTEXT OF THE
DISTINCTION 497 3.5.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT; SUBSIDIARITY ARGUMENT 499 3.5.5 DISTINCTIONS OF AN UNUSUAL
CHARACTER 501 4 CONCLUSIONS 502 4.1 CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE
ASSESSMENT METHODS 502 4.1.1 INTRODUCTION 502 4.1.2 ASSESSMENT IN THE
FIRST PHASE: COMPARABILITY, DISADVANTAGE AND INTENT 502 4.1.3 ASSESSMENT
OF THE PURPOSE 506 4.1.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PURPOSE
AND MEANS 508 4.2 CONCLUSIONS IN RESPECT OF THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 511
4.2.1 LEVELS OF INTENSITY 511 4.2.2 FACTORS DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF
INTENSITY 513 CHAPTER 6 ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IN
THE NETHERLANDS 1 GENERAL 517 1.1 EQUALITY PROVISIONS IN DUTCH LAW 517
1.1.1 INTRODUCTION 517 1.1.2 ARTICLE 1 OF THE DUTCH CONSTITUTION 518
1.1.3 EQUALITY PROVISIONS IN INTERNATIONAL TREATIES 519 1.1.4 EQUALITY
PROVISIONS IN EUROPEAN LAW 522 1.1.5 EQUALITY PROVISIONS IN DUTCH
LEGISLATION 523 1.1.6 THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY AS GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF
PROPER ADMINISTRATION 525 1.2 SITUATIONS IN WHICH DISTINCTIONS ARE MADE
528 1.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISTINCTIONS; FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE
INEQUALITY 529 CONTENTS 1.3.1 FORMAI AND SUBSTANTIVE INEQUALITY 529
1.3.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISTINCTIONS 531 1.4 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL
EFFECT 534 1.5 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS COMPETENT TO
ASSESS UNEQUAL TREATMENT; STRUCTURE OF THE CHAPTER 537 ASSESSMENT
METHODS 540 2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS OF THE VARIOUS COURTS
ANALYSED 540 2.1.1 ASSESSMENT METHODS OF THE DUTCH SUPREME COURT*CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL DIVISIONS 540 2.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE DUTCH SUPREME
COURT*TAX DIVISION 546 2.1.3 ASSESSMENT METHODS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW DIVISION 554 2.1.4 ASSESSMENT METHODS OF THE CENTRAL APPEALS
TRIBUNAL 556 2.1.5 ASSESSMENT METHODS OF THE EQUAL TREATMENT COMMISSION
561 2.2 COMPARABILITY AND DISADVANTAGE IN DUTCH CASE LAW 564 2.2.1
INTRODUCTION 564 2.2.2 THE COMPARABILITY TEST AS FIRST-PHASE TEST 565
2.2.3 THE DISADVANTAGE TEST AS A FIRST-PHASE TEST 573 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF
THE AIM 586 2.3.1 INTRODUCTION 586 2.3.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AIM 587
2.3.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE JUSTIFIABILITY OF THE AIM 593 2.4 ASSESSMENT OF
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AIM AND DISTINCTION 608 2.4.1 DEGREE OF FIT
(OVER- AND UNDERINCLUSIVENESS) AND ASSESSMENT OF THE PROXY 608 2.4.2
SUITABILITY 614 2.4.3 NECESSITY AND SUBSIDIARITY 616 2.4.4
PROPORTIONALITY IN THE STRICT SENSE 622 INTENSITY OF THE ASSESSMENT 630
3.1 VARIATION IN THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY IN THE NETHERLANDS 630 3.2
FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 634 3.2.1 INTRODUCTION 634
3.2.2 FACTORS THAT RELATE TO THE DIVISION OF POWERS 634 3.2.3 OTHER
FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 640 3.2.4 THE BALANCING
OF THE VARIOUS FACTORS 646 CONCLUSIONS 647 CONTENTS XV 4.1 CONCLUSIONS
RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT METHOD 647 4.1.1 FIRST-PHASE ASSESSMENT:
COMPARABILITY AND DISADVANTAGE 647 4.1.2 SECOND-PHASE ASSESSMENT: THE
JUSTIFICATION TEST 651 4.2 CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE LEVEL OF
INTENSITY 656 4.2.1 VARIATION IN THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 656 4.2.2
FACTORS DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 657 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION:
TOWARDS A GENERAL ASSESSMENT MODEL 1 INTRODUCTION 659 2 FIRST-PHASE
ASSESSMENT: DISADVANTAGE AS A FIRST-PHASE TEST 662 2.1 INTRODUCTION 662
2.2 THE COMPARABILITY TEST AS FIRST-PHASE TEST 663 2.3 THE TEST OF
INTENT AS FIRST-PHASE TEST 667 2.4 THE TEST OF DISADVANTAGE AS
FIRST-PHASE TEST 669 2.4.1 THE DISADVANTAGE TEST AS FIRST-PHASE TEST FOR
THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT MODEL 669 2.4.2 STRUCTURE OF THE TEST OF
DISADVANTAGE 670 3 SECOND-PHASE ASSESSMENT: THE JUSTIFICATION MODEL 675
3.1 THE PURPOSE TEST 675 3.1.1 INTRODUCTION 675 3.1.2 DETERMINATION OF
THE PURPOSE OF THE DISTINCTION 676 3.1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE
JUSTIFIABILITY OF THE PURPOSE 679 3.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROXY USED AND
OF THE DEGREE OF FIT 683 3.2.1 INTRODUCTION 683 3.2.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE
PROXY 684 3.2.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE DEGREE OF FIT 685 3.3 SUITABILITY 687
3.4 SUBSIDIARITY AND NECESSITY 688 3.5 PROPORTIONALITY 691 3.5.1
ABSTRACT OR CONCRETE ASSESSMENT? 691 3.5.2 STRUCTURE OF THE
PROPORTIONALITY TEST; DETERMINATION OF INTERESTS 692 3.5.3 WEIGHT OF THE
INTERESTS INVOLVED 693 3.5.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE BALANCE OF INTERESTS 695
4 LEVEL OF INTENSITY 696 4.1 INTRODUCTION: LEVELS OF INTENSITY 696 4.2
THE FACTORS DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY 700 4.2.1 GROUP 1.
FACTORS THAT CONCERN THE DISTINCTION AS SUCH 700 4.2.2 GROUP 2. FACTORS
RELATING TO THE IMPAIRMENT OF INTERESTS 703 XVI CONTENTS 4.2.3 GROUP 3.
FACTORS RELATING TO THE INTEREST PURSUED, THE POLICY FIELD AND POSITION
OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY 707 5 BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE ASSESSMENT MODEL 711
APPENDICES CASE LAW 719 BIBLIOGRAPHY 743 INDEX 761 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| author | Gerards, J. H. 1976- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)132734362 |
| author_facet | Gerards, J. H. 1976- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Gerards, J. H. 1976- |
| author_variant | j h g jh jhg |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV020848906 |
| callnumber-first | K - Law |
| callnumber-label | K3242 |
| callnumber-raw | K3242 |
| callnumber-search | K3242 |
| callnumber-sort | K 43242 |
| callnumber-subject | K - General Law |
| classification_rvk | PI 3600 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)238673514 (DE-599)BVBBV020848906 |
| dewey-full | 342.085 |
| dewey-hundreds | 300 - Social sciences |
| dewey-ones | 342 - Constitutional and administrative law |
| dewey-raw | 342.085 |
| dewey-search | 342.085 |
| dewey-sort | 3342.085 |
| dewey-tens | 340 - Law |
| discipline | Rechtswissenschaft |
| discipline_str_mv | Rechtswissenschaft |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02147nam a2200541zcb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV020848906</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20160113 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">051027s2005 ne m||| 00||| eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="010" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">2005042157</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9004143793</subfield><subfield code="c">alk. paper</subfield><subfield code="9">90-04-14379-3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)238673514</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV020848906</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">aacr</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="h">dut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="044" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ne</subfield><subfield code="c">NL</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-355</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">K3242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">342.085</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PI 3600</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)136615:</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gerards, J. H.</subfield><subfield code="d">1976-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)132734362</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="240" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Rechterlijke toetsing aan het gelijkheidsbeginsel</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Judicial review in equal treatment cases</subfield><subfield code="b">by J.H. Gerards</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Leiden [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="b">Nijhoff</subfield><subfield code="c">2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">XVI, 767 S.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">International studies in human rights</subfield><subfield code="v">83</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zugl.: Maastricht, Univ., Diss., 2002 u.d.T.: Gerards, Janneke H.: Rechterlijke toetsing aan het gelijkheidsbeginsel</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Includes bibliographical references (p. [743]-759) and index</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Discrimination - Law and legislation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Equality before the law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Judicial process</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Recht</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Discrimination</subfield><subfield code="x">Law and legislation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Equality before the law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Judicial process</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Rechtsprechung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4115710-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Gleichheitssatz</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4071878-5</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="655" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4113937-9</subfield><subfield code="a">Hochschulschrift</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd-content</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Gleichheitssatz</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4071878-5</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Rechtsprechung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4115710-2</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">International studies in human rights</subfield><subfield code="v">83</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV000016449</subfield><subfield code="9">83</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">GBV Datenaustausch</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014170644&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-014170644</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| genre | (DE-588)4113937-9 Hochschulschrift gnd-content |
| genre_facet | Hochschulschrift |
| id | DE-604.BV020848906 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-02T13:19:12Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T20:26:34Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9004143793 |
| language | English Dutch |
| lccn | 2005042157 |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-014170644 |
| oclc_num | 238673514 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-355 DE-BY-UBR |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-355 DE-BY-UBR |
| physical | XVI, 767 S. |
| publishDate | 2005 |
| publishDateSearch | 2005 |
| publishDateSort | 2005 |
| publisher | Nijhoff |
| record_format | marc |
| series | International studies in human rights |
| series2 | International studies in human rights |
| spelling | Gerards, J. H. 1976- Verfasser (DE-588)132734362 aut Rechterlijke toetsing aan het gelijkheidsbeginsel Judicial review in equal treatment cases by J.H. Gerards Leiden [u.a.] Nijhoff 2005 XVI, 767 S. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier International studies in human rights 83 Zugl.: Maastricht, Univ., Diss., 2002 u.d.T.: Gerards, Janneke H.: Rechterlijke toetsing aan het gelijkheidsbeginsel Includes bibliographical references (p. [743]-759) and index Discrimination - Law and legislation Equality before the law Judicial process Recht Discrimination Law and legislation Rechtsprechung (DE-588)4115710-2 gnd rswk-swf Gleichheitssatz (DE-588)4071878-5 gnd rswk-swf (DE-588)4113937-9 Hochschulschrift gnd-content Gleichheitssatz (DE-588)4071878-5 s Rechtsprechung (DE-588)4115710-2 s DE-604 International studies in human rights 83 (DE-604)BV000016449 83 GBV Datenaustausch application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014170644&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| spellingShingle | Gerards, J. H. 1976- Judicial review in equal treatment cases by J.H. Gerards International studies in human rights Discrimination - Law and legislation Equality before the law Judicial process Recht Discrimination Law and legislation Rechtsprechung (DE-588)4115710-2 gnd Gleichheitssatz (DE-588)4071878-5 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4115710-2 (DE-588)4071878-5 (DE-588)4113937-9 |
| title | Judicial review in equal treatment cases by J.H. Gerards |
| title_alt | Rechterlijke toetsing aan het gelijkheidsbeginsel |
| title_auth | Judicial review in equal treatment cases by J.H. Gerards |
| title_exact_search | Judicial review in equal treatment cases by J.H. Gerards |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Judicial review in equal treatment cases by J.H. Gerards |
| title_full | Judicial review in equal treatment cases by J.H. Gerards |
| title_fullStr | Judicial review in equal treatment cases by J.H. Gerards |
| title_full_unstemmed | Judicial review in equal treatment cases by J.H. Gerards |
| title_short | Judicial review in equal treatment cases |
| title_sort | judicial review in equal treatment cases by j h gerards |
| title_sub | by J.H. Gerards |
| topic | Discrimination - Law and legislation Equality before the law Judicial process Recht Discrimination Law and legislation Rechtsprechung (DE-588)4115710-2 gnd Gleichheitssatz (DE-588)4071878-5 gnd |
| topic_facet | Discrimination - Law and legislation Equality before the law Judicial process Recht Discrimination Law and legislation Rechtsprechung Gleichheitssatz Hochschulschrift |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014170644&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV000016449 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gerardsjh rechterlijketoetsingaanhetgelijkheidsbeginsel AT gerardsjh judicialreviewinequaltreatmentcasesbyjhgerards |