The Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency’s research projects at a glance:
Comparison of the Implementation of EU Equality Direc- tives
Overview of the expert opinion
The expert opinion compares and evaluates the implementation of the European Equality Directives in the Member States of the European Union.
Author, title and year of publication of the expert opinion
Prof. Dr. Martina Benecke: Rechtsvergleich der europäischen Systeme zum Antidiskriminierungsrecht (2010).
European law as the basis of the General Equal Treatment Act - AGG
The European Union has obliged its Member States to include the protection from discrimination as stipulated in four Equality Directives into national labour and private law. Each Directive protects dif- ferent personal aspects in various spheres of life.
Directive Ground for Discrimination Sphere of life
Anti Racism Directive
2000/43/EC of 29.06.2000 Racial or ethnic origin Employment and occupation
Access to and provision of goods and services which are available to the public
Framework Directive
2007/78/EC of 27.11.2000 Religion or belief, disability, age
or sexual orientation Employment and occupation Recast Directive 2006/54/EC
of 5.07.2008 (replaced Di- rective 2002/73/EC of 23.09.2002)
Gender Employment and occupation
Gender Directive 2004/113/EC
of 13.12.2004 Gender Access to and supply of goods and
services
All of these four Equality Directives were transposed into German law by means of the General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz - AGG). It entered into force on 18 August 2006.
Results
Practical experience so far
By 2010, only a few deficits remained regarding the implementation of the Equality Directives.
Indeed, most EU Member States have overdelivered on the Directive. Most deficits have been remedied.
Legal action, by contrast, has comparatively scant success across all Member States. In Great Brit- ain, the success rate is 10 per cent, in Hungary it is three per cent.
The legislative procedure has triggered a discussion over discrimination in the Member States and raised public awareness of the issue.
Contact details: Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency Glinkastrasse 24
D-10117 Berlin
Telephone: 030 18555-1855
E-Mail for counselling: beratung@ads.bund.de E-Mail for general questions: poststelle@ads.bund.de
The differences
Legislative implementation: States like Germany, Estonia and the Netherlands have transposed the Directives by means of a single anti discrimination law. Other states have adopted several anti discrimination laws, among them Belgium, Austria and Denmark.
Statutory discrimination grounds: Several East and West European countries have included addi- tional grounds for discrimination such as illness, political or union activities, civil status and social status. Mainly East European countries have decided to draw up non-conclusive lists of discrimi- nation grounds
Legal consequences: Major differences exist with regard to sanctions for con-compliance. In North and West European countries, compensation are common while South European countries have opted for penal law approaches.
Anti discrimination organisations: Large differences exist when it comes to the participation of such organisations in legal proceedings. Only a small number of countries allows these organisa- tions to act in court “on behalf of“ discrimination victims.
Anti discrimination agencies: Member States differ fundamentally with regard to the number, size, remit, powers, legal nature and name of the agencies established. Agencies in East European countries enjoy sweeping legal competencies thanks to their quasi-judiciary functions and pow- ers.
Types of implementation
Approaches to implementation fall into three geographical groups that can be dubbed as follows:
The North West European Group comprises the Nordic Member States, the United Kingdom, the Benelux countries, Germany, Austria and France. They are characterised by a “proficient” imple- mentation.
The South European group comprises Portugal, Spain, Italy, Malta, Greece and Cyprus. Their ap- proach to implementation can be termed as “reluctant“.
The East European group comprises the Baltic countries, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Their mode of implementation can be termed as “ambitioned“.
How does the author see the inclusion of additional grounds for discrimination?
The author opposes a non-conclusive list of discrimination grounds since, inter alia, it relativises the care required in selecting grounds and the rationale for their inclusion. In respect of individual grounds, the author concludes the following:
State of health: An advantage is the fact that the difficult distinction from disability can be avoid- ed. However, the protection of illness and state of health only makes sense when embedded in a balanced system of justifications.
Civil status: If a targeted family support scheme is an option as a positive measure, the inclusion of this ground is useful.
Social status: It has practical relevance in civil law. Overall, the risks of relativisation and legal un- certainty would outweigh the benefits.
More information
The expert opinion “Rechtsvergleich der europäischen Systeme zum Antidiskriminierungsrecht“
(A lawyer’s comparison of European approaches to anti discrimination law) can be accessed => here, available only in German language.
