Indirect discrimination: a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Abschlussarbeit Buch |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Antwerpen [u.a.]
Intersentia
2005
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Social Europe series
10 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| Beschreibung: | XXIV, 515 S. Ill. |
| ISBN: | 9050954588 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV021303882 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20060216 | ||
| 007 | t| | ||
| 008 | 060123s2005 xx a||| m||| 00||| eng d | ||
| 020 | |a 9050954588 |c EUR 91.00 |9 90-5095-458-8 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)230770321 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV021303882 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-11 |a DE-188 | ||
| 084 | |a PS 3854 |0 (DE-625)139796: |2 rvk | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Tobler, Christa |d 1961- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)111782635 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Indirect discrimination |b a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law |c Christa Tobler |
| 264 | 1 | |a Antwerpen [u.a.] |b Intersentia |c 2005 | |
| 300 | |a XXIV, 515 S. |b Ill. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Social Europe series |v 10 | |
| 502 | |a Teilw. zugl.: Basel, Univ., Habil.-Schr., 2003 | ||
| 610 | 2 | 7 | |a Europäische Union |0 (DE-588)5098525-5 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 4 | |a Recht | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Discrimination |x Law and legislation |z Europe Union countries | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Discrimination |x Law and legislation |z Europe Union countries |v Cases | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Equality before the law |z European Union countries | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Equality before the law |z European Union countries |v Cases | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Diskriminierung |0 (DE-588)4012472-1 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Antidiskriminierungsrecht |0 (DE-588)4242711-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 4 | |a Europäische Union. Mitgliedsstaaten | |
| 655 | 7 | |0 (DE-588)4113937-9 |a Hochschulschrift |2 gnd-content | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Europäische Union |0 (DE-588)5098525-5 |D b |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Diskriminierung |0 (DE-588)4012472-1 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Antidiskriminierungsrecht |0 (DE-588)4242711-3 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Social Europe series |v 10 |w (DE-604)BV017138418 |9 10 | |
| 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=014624550&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-014624550 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1820135265628323840 |
|---|---|
| adam_text |
INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION A CASE STUDY INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL
CONCEPT OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION UNDER EC LAW CHRISTATOBLER E.M.
MEIJERS INSTITUUT INTERSENTIA ANTWERPEN - OXFORD TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD VII ABBREVIATIONS XXIII PART ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
A. SUBJECT AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 3 I. ON THE SUBJECT 3 1.
INTRODUCING INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 3 2. WHY A STUDY ON INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION? 4 3. A STUDY ON EC LAW 5 4. THE TWO MAIN RESEARCH
QUESTIONS 7 A. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION 7 B. THE PLACE OF THE CONCEPT IN TODAY'S EC LAW 8 II. ON
METHOD 11 1. A LEGAL AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS ESSENTIALLY BASED ON CASE
LAW 11 2. A NOTE ON MATERIALS, LANGUAGE AND REFERENCE TO EC LAW
PROVISIONS 12 3. SET-UP OF THE STUDY 14 B. PARAMETERS 15 I. INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS 15 II. EQUALITY 17 1. EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW AND IN THE LAW 17
A. THE CONCEPTS 17 B. EQUALITY IN THE LAW: AN 'ARISTOTELIAN' NOTION 19
I. THE ARISTOTELIAN FORMULA 19 II. ARISTOTELIAN EQUALITY - AN EMPTY
SHELL? 21 C. THE ARISTOTELIAN APPROACH IN EC LAW 22 2. FORMAL AND
SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY 25 A. THE CONCEPTS 25 INTERSENTIA IX TABLE OF
CONTENTS B. IN EC LAW 26 I. A FORMAL STARTING POINT 26 II. SUBSTANTIVE
EQUALITY IN EC LAW 28 3. EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY 31 A. THE CONCEPT 31 B.
IN EC LAW 32 C. SPECIFICALLY: POSITIVE EQUALITY OBLIGATIONS IN EC LAW 34
4. SOME REMARKS ON THE FUNCTION OF EQUALITY IN EC LAW 35 A. THE ECONOMIC
(COMPETITION) PERSPECTIVE 35 B. THE SOCIAL (HUMAN RIGHTS OR SOLIDARITY)
PERSPECTIVE 38 III. DISCRIMINATION 40 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 40 2. THE
GENERAL CONCEPT OF DISCRIMINATION 41 3. COMPARABILITY AS A PRECONDITION
FOR A FINDING OF DISCRIMINATION 43 A. THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPARABILITY 43
B. THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPARABILITY IN EC LAW 45 C. EXCEPTIONS WHERE
COMPARABILITY IS NOT A PRECONDITION IN EC LAW . 46 I. PREGNANCY
DISCRIMINATION 46 II. DISCRIMINATION THROUGH HARASSMENT 48 4. IMPORTANT
FORMS OF NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS 49 A. OPEN AND CLOSED
NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS 50 B. SYMMETRIC AND ASYMMETRIC
NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS 52 5. SPECIFIC NOTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION
54 A. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 54 B. DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 55
I. DIRECT DISCRIMINATION 56 II. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 57 III.
DISCRIMINATION SUI GENERIS PROHIBITED UNDER EC LAW? 59 C. STRUCTURAL
DISCRIMINATION 61 D. SPECIFICALLY IN EC LAW: DISCRIMINATION IN FORM AND
IN SUBSTANCE 63 E. FACTUAL DISCRIMINATION 64 I. THE CONCEPT 64 II. THE
RELEVANCE OF THE LAW'S LIMITED FIELD OF APPLICATION 65 III. IN
PARTICULAR: LIMITED NUMBER AND REACH OF DISCRIMINATORY GROUNDS 67 6.
JUSTIFICATION FOR DISCRIMINATION 69 A. THE CONCEPT 69 B. DEROGATIONS IN
FORM OR IN SUBSTANCE? 69 C. ABSOLUTELY AND RELATIVELY WORDED PROVISIONS
71 D. JUSTIFICATION AND SCOPE 72 E. JUSTIFICATION AND OBJECTIVE
DIFFERENCES (COMPARABILITY) 73 X INTERSENTIA TABLE OF CONTENTS IV.
RESTRICTIONS IN A WIDER SENSE 75 1. THE CONCEPT 75 2. DEVELOPMENT AND
RELEVANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PRESENT STUDY 76 V. WHAT IS AN EQUALITY
OR NON-DISCRIMINATION RULE FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSES? 77 1. RELEVANT
TYPES OF RULES 77 A. ONLY SUBSTANTIVE RULES DIRECTLY PROHIBITING
DISCRIMINATION 77 B. ONLY EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS IN
A STRICT SENSE . 78 I. INCLUDED PROVISIONS AND AREAS OF LAW 78 II. NOT
THE BASIC TREATY PROVISIONS ON FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS . 79 III. NOT
COMPETITION LAW 83 2. ANALYTICAL TOOLS FOR ANALYSING NON-DISCRIMINATION
AND EQUALITY PROVISIONS 83 VI. SUMMARY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS 85
1. EQUALITY 85 2. DISCRIMINATION 86 3. RESTRICTIONS IN A WIDER SENSE 87
C. HISTORICAL PRECURSORS OF THE CONCEPT OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 89 I.
HISTORIC ORIGINS IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 89 II. THE 'DISPARATE
IMPACT' DOCTRINE IN U.S. LAW 91 1. INTRODUCTION THROUGH CASE LAW 91 A.
EARLY INDICATIONS 91 B. THE LANDMARK CASE: GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER CO 93 2.
INTRODUCING A LEGAL DEFINITION THROUGH THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1991 94 III.
EUROPEAN PRECURSORS: UK AND IRISH LAW 95 IV. THE FIRST EXPLICIT
REFERENCE IN THE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: GEITLING 96 PART TWO:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION IN EC
LAW 99 A. THE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH CASE LAW 101 I. RECOGNITION OF THE
POSSIBILITY THAT DISCRIMINATION CAN BE OF AN INDIRECT NATURE 101
INTERSENTIA XI TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 101 2. THE
FOUNDATIONAL CASES: INTRODUCING THE IDEA OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION .
104 A. FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS: UGLIOLA 104 I. THE CASE 104 II.
COMMENTS 105 B. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS
OF SEX: SABBATINI 107 I. THE CASE 107 II. COMMENTS 108 C. SOTGIU, A
LANDMARK CASE ON DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY 110 I. THE
CASE ILL II. COMMENTS 113 D. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (I) 115 3. A
COMPLICATED BUT NECESSARY EXCURSION: THE DEFRENNE II DISTINCTION IN
RELATION TO DIRECT EFFECT 116 A. THE CASE 116 B. COMMENTS 118 I. PARA.
18: 'INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION' AS RELATED TO DIRECT EFFECT . 118 II.
PARA. 19,48 AND 60: A TRACE OF A SUBSTANTIVE NOTION OF INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION 121 C. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (II) 121 4. APPLICATION OF
THE CONCEPT IN AN ENLARGING CONTEXT 122 A. INTERNAL TAXATION OF GOODS
122 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 122 II. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION: A GENERAL
STATEMENT IN STEINIKE & WEINLIG 124 III. IN SEARCH OF APPLICATION IN
CONCRETE CASES 125 B. FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT 128 I. A GENERAL
STATEMENT IN THIEFFRY 128 II. CONCRETE APPLICATION: DATA-PROCESSING
CONTRACTS 129 C. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (III) 130 D. AGRICULTURAL LAW 131
I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 131 II. SEA FISHERIES: THE CASE 131 III. COMMENTS
133 E. SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE CONTEXT OF FREE MOVEMENT 134 I.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS 134 II. A GENERAL STATEMENT: KENNY 136 III. THE
COURT'S CASE LAW: PALERMO-TOIA 136 INTERSENTIA TABLE OF CONTENTS F.
INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION IN THE CONTEXT OF ART. 12(1) EC (GENERAL
PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY) 138 I.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS 138 II. BOUSSAC 139 G. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (IV)
140 H. SEX EQUALITY LAW OUTSIDE STAFF LAW: ART. 119 OF THE EEC TREATY
AND THE EQUAL TREATMENT DIRECTIVES 141 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 141 II.
JENKINS: THE CASE 141 III. COMMENTS 144 III. BILKA: THE CASE 146 IV.
COMMENTS 148 I. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (V) 150 J. FREE MOVEMENT OF
SERVICES 151 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 151 II. THE SECO CASE 153 III.
COMMENTS 154 K. TRANSPORT LAW 156 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 156 II. CORSICA
FERRIES ITALIA: THE CASE 157 III. COMMENTS 158 1. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION
(VI) 160 M. WHAT ABOUT FREE MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL? 161 I. PRELIMINARY
REMARKS 161 II. UNDER THE OLD REGIME: THE EXAMPLE OF SVENSSON AND
GUSTAVSSON . 164 III. UNDER THE NEW REGIME: TRUMMER AND MAYER 166 N. AN
INTERIM CONCLUSION (VII) 167 5. APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL RULES IN TWO
SPECIFIC CONTEXTS 168 A. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT 168 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS
168 II. BEENTJES: THE CASE 170 III. COMMENTS 171 B. DIRECT (INCOME)
TAXATION 172 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 172 II. HABITUAL RESIDENCE IN BIEHL:
THE CASE 173 III. COMMENTS 174 IV. FISCAL OR TAX RESIDENCE IN
COMMERZBANK: THE CASE 175 V. COMMENTS 176 C. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION
(VIII) 178 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 178 INTERSENTIA XH1 TABLE OF
CONTENTS II. OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION 183 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 183 2.
EARLY DEVELOPMENTS 184 A. UGLIOLA AND SABBATINI: A STRICT APPROACH 184
I. UGLIOLA 184 II. SABBATINI 185 B. OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES: SOTGIU (AND
LATER CASE LAW) 186 C. THE SPECIAL APPROACH IN BOUSSAC: AVOIDING THE
DISADVANTAGE 187 3. OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION IN SEX EQUALITY LAW 190 A. A
NEW APPROACH IN JENKINS 190 I. THE CASE 190 II. COMMENTS 191 B. FROM
BILKA TO RINNER-KUHN 194 4. TOWARDS OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION IN OTHER
AREAS 196 A. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY: FIRST
INDICATIONS . 196 I. SECO 196 II. DATA-PROCESSING CONTRACTS 198 B. STEPS
ON THE WAY ACCORDING TO THE COURT 199 I. BACHMANN 199 II. COMMISSION V
LUXEMBOURG 200 III. ALLUELL 201 C. DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF
NATIONALITY: THE GENERAL STATEMENT IN O'FLYNN 202 I. THE CASE 203 II.
COMMENTS 203 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 204 III. SOME BASIC OVERALL
FINDINGS 205 1. WHAT DOES INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION MEAN? 206 A. RECALLING
THE INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION FORMULAE 206 I. DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF
NATIONALITY 206 II. DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEX 208 III. THE
FORMULA'S ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO CASE LAW 210 B. ARE THERE LINKS BETWEEN
THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREAS OF DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY
AND SEX DISCRIMINATION? . 211 C. THE TERMINOLOGY USED BY THE COURT 212
2. WHY WAS THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 'INVENTED'? 213
IV. ISSUES FOR DEBATE ARISING FROM THE CASE LAW DEFINITION 214 1.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 214 2. ISSUES RELATING TO THE FIRST PART OF THE
INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION FORMULA . 215 A. WHAT DOES 'INDIRECT' MEAN?
215 XIV INTERSENTIA TABLE OF CONTENTS B. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION AND THE
ARISTOTELIAN EQUALITY FORMULA 217 I. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION CAUSED
THROUGH DIFFERENT TREATMENT. 218 II. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION CAUSED
THROUGH SAME TREATMENT? 219 C. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION IN THE CONTEXT OF
OPENLY WORDED NON- DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS 221 I. IN THE CASE OF
GENERAL NON-DISCRIMINATION OR EQUALITY PROVISIONS (COMPARABILITY) 221
II. IN THE CASE OF A NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF DISCRIMINATORY GROUNDS .
223 D. THE ASSESSMENT OF THE DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT 225 I. INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY 225 II. A DIFFERENT TEST FOR
INDIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION 228 III. ARE THERE GOOD REASONS FOR THE
DIFFERENCE IN APPROACH? 233 E. THE RELEVANCE OF INTENT FOR THE
RECOGNITION OF THE POTENTIALLY INDIRECT NATURE OF DISCRIMINATION 234 F.
THE SPECIAL CASE OF'WORK OF EQUAL VALUE' 235 I. MEANING AND FUNCTION OF
THE CONCEPT OF'WORK OF EQUAL VALUE' . 236 II. CONSEQUENCES IN THE
CONTEXT OF INDIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION . 237 3. ISSUES RELATING TO
THE SECOND PART OF THE INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION FORMULA 239 A. OBJECTIVE
JUSTIFICATION: A VAGUE TEST 239 I. THE TEST AS FORMULATED BY THE COURT
239 II. ACCEPTABLE JUSTIFICATION GROUNDS 240 III. OVER- AND
UNDERINCLUSIVENESS 241 IV. PROPORTIONALITY 241 V. CAN THIS VAGUE TEST BE
IMPROVED ON THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL? 242 B. APPLYING THE OBJECTIVE
JUSTIFICATION TEST 243 I. WHO SHOULD DETERMINE THE LEGITIMACY OF A CLAIM
OF OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION? 243 II. THE TEST: STRICT IN PRINCIPLE,
LENIENT IN PRACTICE? 245 C. SPECIFICALLY: JUSTIFICATION BASED ON
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 247 I. ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION IN FREE MOVEMENT
LAW 247 II. SPECIFICALLY: ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION IN THE CONTEXT OF
INDIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION 248 III. WHO SHOULD BEAR THE COSTS OF
NON-DISCRIMINATION? 250 D. PROCEDURAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE OBJECTIVE
JUSTIFICATION ELEMENT 252 E. THE PLACE OF OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION IN THE
DISCRIMINATION ANALYSIS . 253 I. OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AS AN ISSUE
OF JUSTIFICATION (PROPER) 254 II. OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AS AN ISSUE OF
CAUSATION 254 III. THE RELEVANCE OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO
APPROACHES . 258 4. ISSUES RELATING TO THE AIM OF THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF
INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION . 260 A. EFFECTIVENESS IN A BROADER CONTEXT 260
INTERSENTIA XV TABLE OF CONTENTS B. LIMITS TO EFFECTIVENESS INHERENT IN
THE INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION FORMULA 262 C. LIMITS OF A MORE GENERAL
NATURE 264 I. COMPARABILITY 265 II. DIFFERENT TREATMENT 266 D. AWARENESS
AND AVOIDANCE 270 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 273 A. GARRONE'S DEFINITION
REVISITED 273 B. CONSISTENCY, PRECISION AND EFFECTIVENESS 276 B. THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS 279 I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 279 II.
CODIFICATION: THE BURDEN OF PROOF DIRECTIVE (SEX DISCRIMINATION) 280 1.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEFINITION 280 2. THE DEFINITION AS ADOPTED 283
III. A NEW GENERATION 284 1. THE RACE DIRECTIVE 285 A. THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE DEFINITION 285 B. THE DEFINITION AS ADOPTED 286 2. THE SO-CALLED
GENERAL FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE 288 A. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEFINITION 288
B. THE DEFINITION AS ADOPTED 291 3. THE REVISED SECOND EQUAL TREATMENT
DIRECTIVE (SEX DISCRIMINATION) . 294 A. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
DEFINITION 294 B. THE DEFINITION IN COMPARISON 295 IV. COMPARISON AND
FINDINGS 296 1. RECALLING THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS 296 2. DIFFERENT FIELDS
OF APPLICATION 297 3. PRECISION, EFFECTIVENESS AND CONSISTENCY OF THE
NEW DEFINITIONS 301 A. PRECISION 301 B. EFFECTIVENESS 302 C. CONSISTENCY
302 XVL INTERSENTIA TABLE OF CONTENTS PART THREE: DEMARCATIONS 305 A.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 307 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 307 II.
DEMARCATION ON THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL 307 1. INTRODUCTION 307 2. THE
EFFECT OF DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY DISCRIMINATORY MEASURES 308 A. THE
ISSUE 308 B. DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY: UGLIOLA, DE VOS
AND MORA ROMERO 308 C. DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEX: SCHNORBUS 310
I. THE CASE 310 II. COMMENTS 312 D. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (I) 315 3.
JUSTIFICATION 316 A. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 316 B. IS THERE EXTRA-TEXTUAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR DIRECT DISCRIMINATION? 317 I. ABSOLUTELY WORDED
PROVISIONS: ARTS. 34(2), 90(1) AND 12 EC AS EXAMPLES 317 II. RELATIVELY
WORDED PROVISIONS: THE EXAMPLE OF DIRECT TAXATION . 320 III.
RELATIVELY WORDED PROVISIONS: THE EXAMPLE OF SEX DISCRIMI- NATION IN
AREAS OTHER THAN PAY 322 IV. A SPECIAL CASE: EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL
VALUE 324 C. A NEW LEGISLATIVE APPROACH 326 I. THE EXAMPLE OF THE
PART-TIME WORK DIRECTIVE 326 II. THE EXAMPLE OF THE FIXED-TERM WORK
DIRECTIVE 328 III. THE EXAMPLE OF AGE DISCRIMINATION 328 IV. NOT A
UNIVERSAL APPROACH 329 D. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (II) 330 III. APPLYING
THE CONCEPTS IN CONCRETE CASES 333 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 333 2.
ANALYSING THE CASE AND THE LAW 334 A. ANALYSING THE CASE 334 I. WHICH
GROUND FORMS THE BASIS FOR THE DISTINCTION? 334 II. WHOSE TREATMENT IS
AT ISSUE? 336 B. ANALYSING THE LAW 338 I. THE EXAMPLE OF RESIDENCE IN
THE CONTEXT OF FREE MOVEMENT 338 II. THE EXAMPLE OF MARITAL AND FAMILY
STATUS 339 C. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (III) 341 INTERSENTIA XVN TABLE OF
CONTENTS 3. THE REACH OF DIRECTLY DISCRIMINATORY GROUNDS 342 A. THE
EXAMPLE OF DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF PREGNANCY 342 I. DIRECT SEX
DISCRIMINATION: DEKKER 343 II. AT THE MOST INDIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION:
HERTZ 347 III. SPECIFIC LEGISLATION: DOING AWAY WITH THE NEED TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION? 349 B. THE
EXAMPLE OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SEXUAL MINORITIES 350 I. DIRECT OR
INDIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION? 350 II. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS
OF NATIONALITY? 353 III. SPECIFIC LEGISLATION: DOING AWAY WITH THE NEED
TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION? 354 C. AN
INTERIM CONCLUSION (IV) 355 4. EXPLICIT PROVISIONS: NO NEED FOR
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 356 A.
RESIDENCE IN ARTS. 73, 77(2) AND 78(2) OF REGULATION 1408/71 357 B.
LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS UNDER ART. 3(1) OF REGULATION 1612/68 359 C. AN
INTERIM CONCLUSION (V) 361 5. USING EU CITIZENSHIP AS A SHORTCUT? 364 A.
PUSA 364 B. GAUMAIN-CERRI 366 C. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (VI) 368 IV.
OVERALL CONCLUSION: A RATHER UNCLEAR DIVIDING LINE . 368 B. INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION AND RESTRICTIONS IN A WIDER SENSE 371 I. INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS: APPROACHING A VAGUE DIVIDING LINE 371 II. WHY ANEW APPROACH?
372 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 372 2. THREE EARLY CASES 372 A. THE CASES
372 I. PRUDENTIAL SUPERVISION: VAN BINSBERGEN 372 II. RECOGNITION OF
FOREIGN DIPLOMAS: THIEFFRY 374 III. RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DRIVING
LICENCES: CHOQUET 376 B. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION OR RESTRICTION? 377 3.
CONFIRMATION IN A CHANGED LEGAL CONTEXT 381 A. KRAUS 381 B. GEBHARD 382
C. VLASSOPOULOU 384 XVUL INTERSENTIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 4. NO NEED FOR
THE DEMARCATION UNDER SPECIFIC SECONDARY LAW 386 5. AN INTERIM
CONCLUSION (I) 388 III. ON THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE
IN EFFECT? 389 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 389 2. IN SEARCH OF TRULY
INDISTINCTLY APPLICABLE MEASURES: THE EXAMPLE OF CROSS-BORDER TELEVISION
390 A. DEBAUVE 391 I. THE CASE 391 II. COMMENTS 392 B. COLLECTIEVE
ANTENNEVOORZIENING 393 I. THE CASE 393 II. COMMENTS 394 3. AN INTERIM
CONCLUSION (II) 395 IV. ASSESSING CONCRETE CASES 397 1. INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS 397 2. DIFFERENT RELEVANCE OF THE CONCEPTS FOR DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES OF CASES? . 397 A. TAKING DOUBLE REGULATION CASES OUT OF
INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 397 I. CONTRASTING SECO AND VANDER ELST: THE
CASES 398 II. COMMENTS 400 B. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION: LESS RELEVANT IN
CORE AREAS OF COMMUNITY LAW? 402 3. OSCILLATING BETWEEN INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION AND RESTRICTIONS 403 A. KONSTANTINIDIS 403 I. THE CASE
403 II. COMMENTS 405 B. DAFEKI 40 6 I. THE CASE 406 II. COMMENTS 407 4.
THE 'AVOIDANCE CASES' 408 A. TAXATION OF LIFE INSURANCE: SAFIR 409 I.
THE CASE 409 II. COMMENTS 411 B. INSURANCE FOR MEDICAL SERVICES: KOHLL
413 I. THE CASE 413 II. COMMENTS 414 5. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (III) 415
V. OVERALL CONCLUSION: A VERY VAGUE DIVIDING LINE 417 INTERSENTIA XLX
TABLE OF CONTENTS C. DO WE STILL NEED THE CONCEPT OF INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION? 419 I. RECALLING THE STARTING POINT AND THE MAIN
FINDINGS . 419 II. WHAT APPROACH FOR THE FUTURE? 421 1. INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS 421 2. KEEPING THE STATUS QUO: THE 'LABEL OF CONVENIENCE'
APPROACH 422 A. A PRAGMATIC APPROACH 422 B. . AND ITS MEANING FOR THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 423 3.
IMPROVING THE STATUS QUO BY SHARPENING DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS .
424 A. IMPROVING THE DEFINITION OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 424 B.
DEMARCATIONS: CLARIFYING THE DIVIDING LINES 427 I. DIRECT AND INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION 427 II. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION AND RESTRICTIONS IN A
WIDER SENSE 428 4. ABOLISHING (CERTAIN) DISTINCTIONS 429 A. IN FREE
MOVEMENT LAW 430 I. ABOLISHING THE CONCEPT OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION
430 II. ABOLISHING THE CONCEPT OF DISCRIMINATION ALTOGETHER 430 B. IN
AREAS WHERE THERE IS ONLY A PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION 432 I. THE
STATUS QUO: INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION AS AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT 432 II.
CHANGING THE EQUALITY PARADIGM: THE EXAMPLE OF THE CANADIAN APPROACH 432
TABLES 437 A. EC LEGISLATION 437 I. REGULATIONS 437 II. DIRECTIVES 438
B. CASE LAW 441 I. COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 441 1.
COURT OF JUSTICE 441 2. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE 454 II. EFTA COURT 455
III. PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE 455 IV. EUROPEAN COURT OF
HUMAN RIGHTS 455 XX INTERSENTIA TABLE OF CONTENTS V. CANADIAN SUPREME
COURT 455 VI. U.S. SUPREME COURT 456 C. LITERATURE QUOTED 456 INDEX 509
INTERSENTIA XX1 |
| adam_txt |
INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION A CASE STUDY INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL
CONCEPT OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION UNDER EC LAW CHRISTATOBLER E.M.
MEIJERS INSTITUUT INTERSENTIA ANTWERPEN - OXFORD TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD VII ABBREVIATIONS XXIII PART ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
A. SUBJECT AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 3 I. ON THE SUBJECT 3 1.
INTRODUCING INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 3 2. WHY A STUDY ON INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION? 4 3. A STUDY ON EC LAW 5 4. THE TWO MAIN RESEARCH
QUESTIONS 7 A. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION 7 B. THE PLACE OF THE CONCEPT IN TODAY'S EC LAW 8 II. ON
METHOD 11 1. A LEGAL AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS ESSENTIALLY BASED ON CASE
LAW 11 2. A NOTE ON MATERIALS, LANGUAGE AND REFERENCE TO EC LAW
PROVISIONS 12 3. SET-UP OF THE STUDY 14 B. PARAMETERS 15 I. INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS 15 II. EQUALITY 17 1. EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW AND IN THE LAW 17
A. THE CONCEPTS 17 B. EQUALITY IN THE LAW: AN 'ARISTOTELIAN' NOTION 19
I. THE ARISTOTELIAN FORMULA 19 II. ARISTOTELIAN EQUALITY - AN EMPTY
SHELL? 21 C. THE ARISTOTELIAN APPROACH IN EC LAW 22 2. FORMAL AND
SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY 25 A. THE CONCEPTS 25 INTERSENTIA IX TABLE OF
CONTENTS B. IN EC LAW 26 I. A FORMAL STARTING POINT 26 II. SUBSTANTIVE
EQUALITY IN EC LAW 28 3. EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY 31 A. THE CONCEPT 31 B.
IN EC LAW 32 C. SPECIFICALLY: POSITIVE EQUALITY OBLIGATIONS IN EC LAW 34
4. SOME REMARKS ON THE FUNCTION OF EQUALITY IN EC LAW 35 A. THE ECONOMIC
(COMPETITION) PERSPECTIVE 35 B. THE SOCIAL (HUMAN RIGHTS OR SOLIDARITY)
PERSPECTIVE 38 III. DISCRIMINATION 40 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 40 2. THE
GENERAL CONCEPT OF DISCRIMINATION 41 3. COMPARABILITY AS A PRECONDITION
FOR A FINDING OF DISCRIMINATION 43 A. THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPARABILITY 43
B. THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPARABILITY IN EC LAW 45 C. EXCEPTIONS WHERE
COMPARABILITY IS NOT A PRECONDITION IN EC LAW . 46 I. PREGNANCY
DISCRIMINATION 46 II. DISCRIMINATION THROUGH HARASSMENT 48 4. IMPORTANT
FORMS OF NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS 49 A. OPEN AND CLOSED
NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS 50 B. SYMMETRIC AND ASYMMETRIC
NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS 52 5. SPECIFIC NOTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION
54 A. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 54 B. DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 55
I. DIRECT DISCRIMINATION 56 II. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 57 III.
DISCRIMINATION SUI GENERIS PROHIBITED UNDER EC LAW? 59 C. STRUCTURAL
DISCRIMINATION 61 D. SPECIFICALLY IN EC LAW: DISCRIMINATION IN FORM AND
IN SUBSTANCE 63 E. FACTUAL DISCRIMINATION 64 I. THE CONCEPT 64 II. THE
RELEVANCE OF THE LAW'S LIMITED FIELD OF APPLICATION 65 III. IN
PARTICULAR: LIMITED NUMBER AND REACH OF DISCRIMINATORY GROUNDS 67 6.
JUSTIFICATION FOR DISCRIMINATION 69 A. THE CONCEPT 69 B. DEROGATIONS IN
FORM OR IN SUBSTANCE? 69 C. ABSOLUTELY AND RELATIVELY WORDED PROVISIONS
71 D. JUSTIFICATION AND SCOPE 72 E. JUSTIFICATION AND OBJECTIVE
DIFFERENCES (COMPARABILITY) 73 X INTERSENTIA TABLE OF CONTENTS IV.
RESTRICTIONS IN A WIDER SENSE 75 1. THE CONCEPT 75 2. DEVELOPMENT AND
RELEVANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PRESENT STUDY 76 V. WHAT IS AN EQUALITY
OR NON-DISCRIMINATION RULE FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSES? 77 1. RELEVANT
TYPES OF RULES 77 A. ONLY SUBSTANTIVE RULES DIRECTLY PROHIBITING
DISCRIMINATION 77 B. ONLY EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS IN
A STRICT SENSE . 78 I. INCLUDED PROVISIONS AND AREAS OF LAW 78 II. NOT
THE BASIC TREATY PROVISIONS ON FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS . 79 III. NOT
COMPETITION LAW 83 2. ANALYTICAL TOOLS FOR ANALYSING NON-DISCRIMINATION
AND EQUALITY PROVISIONS 83 VI. SUMMARY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS 85
1. EQUALITY 85 2. DISCRIMINATION 86 3. RESTRICTIONS IN A WIDER SENSE 87
C. HISTORICAL PRECURSORS OF THE CONCEPT OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 89 I.
HISTORIC ORIGINS IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 89 II. THE 'DISPARATE
IMPACT' DOCTRINE IN U.S. LAW 91 1. INTRODUCTION THROUGH CASE LAW 91 A.
EARLY INDICATIONS 91 B. THE LANDMARK CASE: GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER CO 93 2.
INTRODUCING A LEGAL DEFINITION THROUGH THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1991 94 III.
EUROPEAN PRECURSORS: UK AND IRISH LAW 95 IV. THE FIRST EXPLICIT
REFERENCE IN THE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: GEITLING 96 PART TWO:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION IN EC
LAW 99 A. THE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH CASE LAW 101 I. RECOGNITION OF THE
POSSIBILITY THAT DISCRIMINATION CAN BE OF AN INDIRECT NATURE 101
INTERSENTIA XI TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 101 2. THE
FOUNDATIONAL CASES: INTRODUCING THE IDEA OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION .
104 A. FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS: UGLIOLA 104 I. THE CASE 104 II.
COMMENTS 105 B. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS
OF SEX: SABBATINI 107 I. THE CASE 107 II. COMMENTS 108 C. SOTGIU, A
LANDMARK CASE ON DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY 110 I. THE
CASE ILL II. COMMENTS 113 D. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (I) 115 3. A
COMPLICATED BUT NECESSARY EXCURSION: THE DEFRENNE II DISTINCTION IN
RELATION TO DIRECT EFFECT 116 A. THE CASE 116 B. COMMENTS 118 I. PARA.
18: 'INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION' AS RELATED TO DIRECT EFFECT . 118 II.
PARA. 19,48 AND 60: A TRACE OF A SUBSTANTIVE NOTION OF INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION 121 C. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (II) 121 4. APPLICATION OF
THE CONCEPT IN AN ENLARGING CONTEXT 122 A. INTERNAL TAXATION OF GOODS
122 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 122 II. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION: A GENERAL
STATEMENT IN STEINIKE & WEINLIG 124 III. IN SEARCH OF APPLICATION IN
CONCRETE CASES 125 B. FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT 128 I. A GENERAL
STATEMENT IN THIEFFRY 128 II. CONCRETE APPLICATION: DATA-PROCESSING
CONTRACTS 129 C. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (III) 130 D. AGRICULTURAL LAW 131
I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 131 II. SEA FISHERIES: THE CASE 131 III. COMMENTS
133 E. SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE CONTEXT OF FREE MOVEMENT 134 I.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS 134 II. A GENERAL STATEMENT: KENNY 136 III. THE
COURT'S CASE LAW: PALERMO-TOIA 136 INTERSENTIA TABLE OF CONTENTS F.
INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION IN THE CONTEXT OF ART. 12(1) EC (GENERAL
PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY) 138 I.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS 138 II. BOUSSAC 139 G. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (IV)
140 H. SEX EQUALITY LAW OUTSIDE STAFF LAW: ART. 119 OF THE EEC TREATY
AND THE EQUAL TREATMENT DIRECTIVES 141 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 141 II.
JENKINS: THE CASE 141 III. COMMENTS 144 III. BILKA: THE CASE 146 IV.
COMMENTS 148 I. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (V) 150 J. FREE MOVEMENT OF
SERVICES 151 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 151 II. THE SECO CASE 153 III.
COMMENTS 154 K. TRANSPORT LAW 156 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 156 II. CORSICA
FERRIES ITALIA: THE CASE 157 III. COMMENTS 158 1. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION
(VI) 160 M. WHAT ABOUT FREE MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL? 161 I. PRELIMINARY
REMARKS 161 II. UNDER THE OLD REGIME: THE EXAMPLE OF SVENSSON AND
GUSTAVSSON . 164 III. UNDER THE NEW REGIME: TRUMMER AND MAYER 166 N. AN
INTERIM CONCLUSION (VII) 167 5. APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL RULES IN TWO
SPECIFIC CONTEXTS 168 A. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT 168 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS
168 II. BEENTJES: THE CASE 170 III. COMMENTS 171 B. DIRECT (INCOME)
TAXATION 172 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 172 II. HABITUAL RESIDENCE IN BIEHL:
THE CASE 173 III. COMMENTS 174 IV. FISCAL OR TAX RESIDENCE IN
COMMERZBANK: THE CASE 175 V. COMMENTS 176 C. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION
(VIII) 178 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 178 INTERSENTIA XH1 TABLE OF
CONTENTS II. OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION 183 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 183 2.
EARLY DEVELOPMENTS 184 A. UGLIOLA AND SABBATINI: A STRICT APPROACH 184
I. UGLIOLA 184 II. SABBATINI 185 B. OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES: SOTGIU (AND
LATER CASE LAW) 186 C. THE SPECIAL APPROACH IN BOUSSAC: AVOIDING THE
DISADVANTAGE 187 3. OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION IN SEX EQUALITY LAW 190 A. A
NEW APPROACH IN JENKINS 190 I. THE CASE 190 II. COMMENTS 191 B. FROM
BILKA TO RINNER-KUHN 194 4. TOWARDS OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION IN OTHER
AREAS 196 A. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY: FIRST
INDICATIONS . 196 I. SECO 196 II. DATA-PROCESSING CONTRACTS 198 B. STEPS
ON THE WAY ACCORDING TO THE COURT 199 I. BACHMANN 199 II. COMMISSION V
LUXEMBOURG 200 III. ALLUELL 201 C. DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF
NATIONALITY: THE GENERAL STATEMENT IN O'FLYNN 202 I. THE CASE 203 II.
COMMENTS 203 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 204 III. SOME BASIC OVERALL
FINDINGS 205 1. WHAT DOES INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION MEAN? 206 A. RECALLING
THE INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION FORMULAE 206 I. DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF
NATIONALITY 206 II. DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEX 208 III. THE
FORMULA'S ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO CASE LAW 210 B. ARE THERE LINKS BETWEEN
THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREAS OF DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY
AND SEX DISCRIMINATION? . 211 C. THE TERMINOLOGY USED BY THE COURT 212
2. WHY WAS THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 'INVENTED'? 213
IV. ISSUES FOR DEBATE ARISING FROM THE CASE LAW DEFINITION 214 1.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 214 2. ISSUES RELATING TO THE FIRST PART OF THE
INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION FORMULA . 215 A. WHAT DOES 'INDIRECT' MEAN?
215 XIV INTERSENTIA TABLE OF CONTENTS B. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION AND THE
ARISTOTELIAN EQUALITY FORMULA 217 I. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION CAUSED
THROUGH DIFFERENT TREATMENT. 218 II. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION CAUSED
THROUGH SAME TREATMENT? 219 C. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION IN THE CONTEXT OF
OPENLY WORDED NON- DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS 221 I. IN THE CASE OF
GENERAL NON-DISCRIMINATION OR EQUALITY PROVISIONS (COMPARABILITY) 221
II. IN THE CASE OF A NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF DISCRIMINATORY GROUNDS .
223 D. THE ASSESSMENT OF THE DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT 225 I. INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY 225 II. A DIFFERENT TEST FOR
INDIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION 228 III. ARE THERE GOOD REASONS FOR THE
DIFFERENCE IN APPROACH? 233 E. THE RELEVANCE OF INTENT FOR THE
RECOGNITION OF THE POTENTIALLY INDIRECT NATURE OF DISCRIMINATION 234 F.
THE SPECIAL CASE OF'WORK OF EQUAL VALUE' 235 I. MEANING AND FUNCTION OF
THE CONCEPT OF'WORK OF EQUAL VALUE' . 236 II. CONSEQUENCES IN THE
CONTEXT OF INDIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION . 237 3. ISSUES RELATING TO
THE SECOND PART OF THE INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION FORMULA 239 A. OBJECTIVE
JUSTIFICATION: A VAGUE TEST 239 I. THE TEST AS FORMULATED BY THE COURT
239 II. ACCEPTABLE JUSTIFICATION GROUNDS 240 III. OVER- AND
UNDERINCLUSIVENESS 241 IV. PROPORTIONALITY 241 V. CAN THIS VAGUE TEST BE
IMPROVED ON THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL? 242 B. APPLYING THE OBJECTIVE
JUSTIFICATION TEST 243 I. WHO SHOULD DETERMINE THE LEGITIMACY OF A CLAIM
OF OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION? 243 II. THE TEST: STRICT IN PRINCIPLE,
LENIENT IN PRACTICE? 245 C. SPECIFICALLY: JUSTIFICATION BASED ON
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 247 I. ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION IN FREE MOVEMENT
LAW 247 II. SPECIFICALLY: ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION IN THE CONTEXT OF
INDIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION 248 III. WHO SHOULD BEAR THE COSTS OF
NON-DISCRIMINATION? 250 D. PROCEDURAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE OBJECTIVE
JUSTIFICATION ELEMENT 252 E. THE PLACE OF OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION IN THE
DISCRIMINATION ANALYSIS . 253 I. OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AS AN ISSUE
OF JUSTIFICATION (PROPER) 254 II. OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AS AN ISSUE OF
CAUSATION 254 III. THE RELEVANCE OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO
APPROACHES . 258 4. ISSUES RELATING TO THE AIM OF THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF
INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION . 260 A. EFFECTIVENESS IN A BROADER CONTEXT 260
INTERSENTIA XV TABLE OF CONTENTS B. LIMITS TO EFFECTIVENESS INHERENT IN
THE INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION FORMULA 262 C. LIMITS OF A MORE GENERAL
NATURE 264 I. COMPARABILITY 265 II. DIFFERENT TREATMENT 266 D. AWARENESS
AND AVOIDANCE 270 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 273 A. GARRONE'S DEFINITION
REVISITED 273 B. CONSISTENCY, PRECISION AND EFFECTIVENESS 276 B. THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS 279 I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 279 II.
CODIFICATION: THE BURDEN OF PROOF DIRECTIVE (SEX DISCRIMINATION) 280 1.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEFINITION 280 2. THE DEFINITION AS ADOPTED 283
III. A NEW GENERATION 284 1. THE RACE DIRECTIVE 285 A. THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE DEFINITION 285 B. THE DEFINITION AS ADOPTED 286 2. THE SO-CALLED
GENERAL FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE 288 A. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEFINITION 288
B. THE DEFINITION AS ADOPTED 291 3. THE REVISED SECOND EQUAL TREATMENT
DIRECTIVE (SEX DISCRIMINATION) . 294 A. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
DEFINITION 294 B. THE DEFINITION IN COMPARISON 295 IV. COMPARISON AND
FINDINGS 296 1. RECALLING THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS 296 2. DIFFERENT FIELDS
OF APPLICATION 297 3. PRECISION, EFFECTIVENESS AND CONSISTENCY OF THE
NEW DEFINITIONS 301 A. PRECISION 301 B. EFFECTIVENESS 302 C. CONSISTENCY
302 XVL INTERSENTIA TABLE OF CONTENTS PART THREE: DEMARCATIONS 305 A.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 307 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 307 II.
DEMARCATION ON THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL 307 1. INTRODUCTION 307 2. THE
EFFECT OF DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY DISCRIMINATORY MEASURES 308 A. THE
ISSUE 308 B. DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY: UGLIOLA, DE VOS
AND MORA ROMERO 308 C. DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEX: SCHNORBUS 310
I. THE CASE 310 II. COMMENTS 312 D. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (I) 315 3.
JUSTIFICATION 316 A. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 316 B. IS THERE EXTRA-TEXTUAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR DIRECT DISCRIMINATION? 317 I. ABSOLUTELY WORDED
PROVISIONS: ARTS. 34(2), 90(1) AND 12 EC AS EXAMPLES 317 II. RELATIVELY
WORDED PROVISIONS: THE EXAMPLE OF DIRECT TAXATION . 320 III.
RELATIVELY WORDED PROVISIONS: THE EXAMPLE OF SEX DISCRIMI- NATION IN
AREAS OTHER THAN PAY 322 IV. A SPECIAL CASE: EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL
VALUE 324 C. A NEW LEGISLATIVE APPROACH 326 I. THE EXAMPLE OF THE
PART-TIME WORK DIRECTIVE 326 II. THE EXAMPLE OF THE FIXED-TERM WORK
DIRECTIVE 328 III. THE EXAMPLE OF AGE DISCRIMINATION 328 IV. NOT A
UNIVERSAL APPROACH 329 D. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (II) 330 III. APPLYING
THE CONCEPTS IN CONCRETE CASES 333 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 333 2.
ANALYSING THE CASE AND THE LAW 334 A. ANALYSING THE CASE 334 I. WHICH
GROUND FORMS THE BASIS FOR THE DISTINCTION? 334 II. WHOSE TREATMENT IS
AT ISSUE? 336 B. ANALYSING THE LAW 338 I. THE EXAMPLE OF RESIDENCE IN
THE CONTEXT OF FREE MOVEMENT 338 II. THE EXAMPLE OF MARITAL AND FAMILY
STATUS 339 C. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (III) 341 INTERSENTIA XVN TABLE OF
CONTENTS 3. THE REACH OF DIRECTLY DISCRIMINATORY GROUNDS 342 A. THE
EXAMPLE OF DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF PREGNANCY 342 I. DIRECT SEX
DISCRIMINATION: DEKKER 343 II. AT THE MOST INDIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION:
HERTZ 347 III. SPECIFIC LEGISLATION: DOING AWAY WITH THE NEED TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION? 349 B. THE
EXAMPLE OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SEXUAL MINORITIES 350 I. DIRECT OR
INDIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION? 350 II. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS
OF NATIONALITY? 353 III. SPECIFIC LEGISLATION: DOING AWAY WITH THE NEED
TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION? 354 C. AN
INTERIM CONCLUSION (IV) 355 4. EXPLICIT PROVISIONS: NO NEED FOR
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 356 A.
RESIDENCE IN ARTS. 73, 77(2) AND 78(2) OF REGULATION 1408/71 357 B.
LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS UNDER ART. 3(1) OF REGULATION 1612/68 359 C. AN
INTERIM CONCLUSION (V) 361 5. USING EU CITIZENSHIP AS A SHORTCUT? 364 A.
PUSA 364 B. GAUMAIN-CERRI 366 C. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (VI) 368 IV.
OVERALL CONCLUSION: A RATHER UNCLEAR DIVIDING LINE . 368 B. INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION AND RESTRICTIONS IN A WIDER SENSE 371 I. INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS: APPROACHING A VAGUE DIVIDING LINE 371 II. WHY ANEW APPROACH?
372 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 372 2. THREE EARLY CASES 372 A. THE CASES
372 I. PRUDENTIAL SUPERVISION: VAN BINSBERGEN 372 II. RECOGNITION OF
FOREIGN DIPLOMAS: THIEFFRY 374 III. RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DRIVING
LICENCES: CHOQUET 376 B. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION OR RESTRICTION? 377 3.
CONFIRMATION IN A CHANGED LEGAL CONTEXT 381 A. KRAUS 381 B. GEBHARD 382
C. VLASSOPOULOU 384 XVUL INTERSENTIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 4. NO NEED FOR
THE DEMARCATION UNDER SPECIFIC SECONDARY LAW 386 5. AN INTERIM
CONCLUSION (I) 388 III. ON THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE
IN EFFECT? 389 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 389 2. IN SEARCH OF TRULY
INDISTINCTLY APPLICABLE MEASURES: THE EXAMPLE OF CROSS-BORDER TELEVISION
390 A. DEBAUVE 391 I. THE CASE 391 II. COMMENTS 392 B. COLLECTIEVE
ANTENNEVOORZIENING 393 I. THE CASE 393 II. COMMENTS 394 3. AN INTERIM
CONCLUSION (II) 395 IV. ASSESSING CONCRETE CASES 397 1. INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS 397 2. DIFFERENT RELEVANCE OF THE CONCEPTS FOR DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES OF CASES? . 397 A. TAKING DOUBLE REGULATION CASES OUT OF
INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 397 I. CONTRASTING SECO AND VANDER ELST: THE
CASES 398 II. COMMENTS 400 B. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION: LESS RELEVANT IN
CORE AREAS OF COMMUNITY LAW? 402 3. OSCILLATING BETWEEN INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION AND RESTRICTIONS 403 A. KONSTANTINIDIS 403 I. THE CASE
403 II. COMMENTS 405 B. DAFEKI 40 6 I. THE CASE 406 II. COMMENTS 407 4.
THE 'AVOIDANCE CASES' 408 A. TAXATION OF LIFE INSURANCE: SAFIR 409 I.
THE CASE 409 II. COMMENTS 411 B. INSURANCE FOR MEDICAL SERVICES: KOHLL
413 I. THE CASE 413 II. COMMENTS 414 5. AN INTERIM CONCLUSION (III) 415
V. OVERALL CONCLUSION: A VERY VAGUE DIVIDING LINE 417 INTERSENTIA XLX
TABLE OF CONTENTS C. DO WE STILL NEED THE CONCEPT OF INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION? 419 I. RECALLING THE STARTING POINT AND THE MAIN
FINDINGS . 419 II. WHAT APPROACH FOR THE FUTURE? 421 1. INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS 421 2. KEEPING THE STATUS QUO: THE 'LABEL OF CONVENIENCE'
APPROACH 422 A. A PRAGMATIC APPROACH 422 B. . AND ITS MEANING FOR THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 423 3.
IMPROVING THE STATUS QUO BY SHARPENING DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS .
424 A. IMPROVING THE DEFINITION OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION 424 B.
DEMARCATIONS: CLARIFYING THE DIVIDING LINES 427 I. DIRECT AND INDIRECT
DISCRIMINATION 427 II. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION AND RESTRICTIONS IN A
WIDER SENSE 428 4. ABOLISHING (CERTAIN) DISTINCTIONS 429 A. IN FREE
MOVEMENT LAW 430 I. ABOLISHING THE CONCEPT OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION
430 II. ABOLISHING THE CONCEPT OF DISCRIMINATION ALTOGETHER 430 B. IN
AREAS WHERE THERE IS ONLY A PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION 432 I. THE
STATUS QUO: INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION AS AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT 432 II.
CHANGING THE EQUALITY PARADIGM: THE EXAMPLE OF THE CANADIAN APPROACH 432
TABLES 437 A. EC LEGISLATION 437 I. REGULATIONS 437 II. DIRECTIVES 438
B. CASE LAW 441 I. COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 441 1.
COURT OF JUSTICE 441 2. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE 454 II. EFTA COURT 455
III. PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE 455 IV. EUROPEAN COURT OF
HUMAN RIGHTS 455 XX INTERSENTIA TABLE OF CONTENTS V. CANADIAN SUPREME
COURT 455 VI. U.S. SUPREME COURT 456 C. LITERATURE QUOTED 456 INDEX 509
INTERSENTIA XX1 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| author | Tobler, Christa 1961- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)111782635 |
| author_facet | Tobler, Christa 1961- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Tobler, Christa 1961- |
| author_variant | c t ct |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV021303882 |
| classification_rvk | PS 3854 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)230770321 (DE-599)BVBBV021303882 |
| discipline | Rechtswissenschaft |
| discipline_str_mv | Rechtswissenschaft |
| format | Thesis Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nam a2200000 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV021303882</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20060216</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t|</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">060123s2005 xx a||| m||| 00||| eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9050954588</subfield><subfield code="c">EUR 91.00</subfield><subfield code="9">90-5095-458-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)230770321</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV021303882</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-11</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PS 3854</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)139796:</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tobler, Christa</subfield><subfield code="d">1961-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)111782635</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Indirect discrimination</subfield><subfield code="b">a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law</subfield><subfield code="c">Christa Tobler</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Antwerpen [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="b">Intersentia</subfield><subfield code="c">2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">XXIV, 515 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill.</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">Social Europe series</subfield><subfield code="v">10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="502" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Teilw. zugl.: Basel, Univ., Habil.-Schr., 2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="610" ind1="2" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Europäische Union</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)5098525-5</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</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><subfield code="z">Europe Union countries</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Discrimination</subfield><subfield code="x">Law and legislation</subfield><subfield code="z">Europe Union countries</subfield><subfield code="v">Cases</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Equality before the law</subfield><subfield code="z">European Union countries</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Equality before the law</subfield><subfield code="z">European Union countries</subfield><subfield code="v">Cases</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Diskriminierung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4012472-1</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Antidiskriminierungsrecht</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4242711-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Europäische Union. Mitgliedsstaaten</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">Europäische Union</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)5098525-5</subfield><subfield code="D">b</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Diskriminierung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4012472-1</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Antidiskriminierungsrecht</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4242711-3</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">Social Europe series</subfield><subfield code="v">10</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV017138418</subfield><subfield code="9">10</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=014624550&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-014624550</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| genre | (DE-588)4113937-9 Hochschulschrift gnd-content |
| genre_facet | Hochschulschrift |
| geographic | Europäische Union. Mitgliedsstaaten |
| geographic_facet | Europäische Union. Mitgliedsstaaten |
| id | DE-604.BV021303882 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-02T13:53:35Z |
| indexdate | 2025-01-02T11:10:54Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9050954588 |
| language | English |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-014624550 |
| oclc_num | 230770321 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-11 DE-188 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-11 DE-188 |
| physical | XXIV, 515 S. Ill. |
| publishDate | 2005 |
| publishDateSearch | 2005 |
| publishDateSort | 2005 |
| publisher | Intersentia |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Social Europe series |
| series2 | Social Europe series |
| spelling | Tobler, Christa 1961- Verfasser (DE-588)111782635 aut Indirect discrimination a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law Christa Tobler Antwerpen [u.a.] Intersentia 2005 XXIV, 515 S. Ill. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Social Europe series 10 Teilw. zugl.: Basel, Univ., Habil.-Schr., 2003 Europäische Union (DE-588)5098525-5 gnd rswk-swf Recht Discrimination Law and legislation Europe Union countries Discrimination Law and legislation Europe Union countries Cases Equality before the law European Union countries Equality before the law European Union countries Cases Diskriminierung (DE-588)4012472-1 gnd rswk-swf Antidiskriminierungsrecht (DE-588)4242711-3 gnd rswk-swf Europäische Union. Mitgliedsstaaten (DE-588)4113937-9 Hochschulschrift gnd-content Europäische Union (DE-588)5098525-5 b Diskriminierung (DE-588)4012472-1 s Antidiskriminierungsrecht (DE-588)4242711-3 s DE-604 Social Europe series 10 (DE-604)BV017138418 10 GBV Datenaustausch application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014624550&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| spellingShingle | Tobler, Christa 1961- Indirect discrimination a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law Social Europe series Europäische Union (DE-588)5098525-5 gnd Recht Discrimination Law and legislation Europe Union countries Discrimination Law and legislation Europe Union countries Cases Equality before the law European Union countries Equality before the law European Union countries Cases Diskriminierung (DE-588)4012472-1 gnd Antidiskriminierungsrecht (DE-588)4242711-3 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)5098525-5 (DE-588)4012472-1 (DE-588)4242711-3 (DE-588)4113937-9 |
| title | Indirect discrimination a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law |
| title_auth | Indirect discrimination a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law |
| title_exact_search | Indirect discrimination a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Indirect discrimination a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law |
| title_full | Indirect discrimination a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law Christa Tobler |
| title_fullStr | Indirect discrimination a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law Christa Tobler |
| title_full_unstemmed | Indirect discrimination a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law Christa Tobler |
| title_short | Indirect discrimination |
| title_sort | indirect discrimination a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under ec law |
| title_sub | a case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law |
| topic | Europäische Union (DE-588)5098525-5 gnd Recht Discrimination Law and legislation Europe Union countries Discrimination Law and legislation Europe Union countries Cases Equality before the law European Union countries Equality before the law European Union countries Cases Diskriminierung (DE-588)4012472-1 gnd Antidiskriminierungsrecht (DE-588)4242711-3 gnd |
| topic_facet | Europäische Union Recht Discrimination Law and legislation Europe Union countries Discrimination Law and legislation Europe Union countries Cases Equality before the law European Union countries Equality before the law European Union countries Cases Diskriminierung Antidiskriminierungsrecht Europäische Union. Mitgliedsstaaten Hochschulschrift |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014624550&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV017138418 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT toblerchrista indirectdiscriminationacasestudyintothedevelopmentofthelegalconceptofindirectdiscriminationundereclaw |