Along came a spider...

2.1. Introduction

2.2. Recognising Direct Discrimination

2.2.1. Discrimination and The Council of Europe

2.CoE.1. ECtHR, 23 July 1968, Case relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium v Belgium. the concept of discrimination under article 14
2.CoE.2. ECtHR, 6 April 2000, Thlimmenos v Greece. failure to treat differently persons in different situations

2.2.2. Discrimination and The European Union

2.2.3. General Concepts of Direct Discrimination in National Law

2.BE.3. O De Schutter, Report on measures to combat discrimination: Directive 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. country report Belgium
2.FI.4. T Makkonen, Report on measures to combat discrimination: Directive 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. country report Finland
2.FI.5. T Makkonen, Report on measures to combat discrimination: Directive 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. country report Finland

2.2.3.A. UK

2.2.3.B. France

2.2.3.C. The Netherlands

2.NL.6. M Gijzen, Report on measures to combat discrimination: Directive 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. country report Netherlands

2.2.3.D. Germany

2.DE.7. Workplace Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz)

2.3. Establishing Direct Discrimination

2.3.1. Causation and Comparators

2.EC.8. ECJ, 30 April 1996, Case C-13/94, P v S and Cornwall County Council. sex discrimination and transsexuals
2.FR.9. Court of Cassation, 14 June 2000, CFDT Inter-Co v Fort. role for comparators in identifying cause of treatment

2.3.1.A. Choosing The Appropriate Comparator

2.EC.10. ECJ, 27 April 2006, Case-423/04, Richards v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. sex discrimination and transsexuals
2.EC.11. ECJ, 17 February 1998, Case C-249/96, Grant v South-West Trains. sex discrimination and sexual orientation

2.3.1.B. Direct Discrimination Without a Comparator

2.EC.12. ECJ, 8 November 1990, Case C-177/88, Dekker v VJV Centrum. comparators and pregnancy discrimination
2.EC.13. ECJ, 7 December 2000, Case C-79/99, Schnorbus v Land Hessen. more favourable treatment of persons having completed military service

2.3.1.C. Hypothetical Comparators

2.NIR.14. House of Lords, 27 February 2003, Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. hypothetical comparators
2.IE.15. Equality Tribunal, 7 May 2003, O'Brien v Iarnród Eireann. hypothetical comparators

2.3.1.D. Equal Pay Comparators

2.EC.16. ECJ, 13 January 2004, Case C-256/01, Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College. Comparators in equal pay

2.3.1.E. Comparators in Age Discrimination

2.IE.17. Equality Tribunal, 24 September 2001, Perry v The Garda Commissioner. hypothetical comparators and age discrimination

2.3.2. Intent, Motive and Stereotyping

2.3.2.A. Motive

2.BE.18. Labour Court of Ghent, 24 January 1985, MVT v G. third party pressure and direct discrimination

2.3.2.B. Stereotyping

2.GB.19. House of Lords, 9 December 2004, R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another. stereotyping and direct racial discrimination
2.ES.20. Spanish Constitutional Court, 14 December 1992, Rodriguez Valencia. stereotyping and direct sex discrimination

2.3.3. Less Favourable Treatment

2.NIR.21. House of Lords, 27 February 2003, Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. the meaning of detriment
2.DE.22. Federal Labour Court, 12 November 1998. detriment and rejected job applicants

2.4. Proving Direct Discrimination

2.FR.23. Court of Cassation, Criminal Division, 25 November 1997, Case 96-85670, Poitier. no explanation other than direct discrimination

2.4.1. Shifting the Burden of Proof

2.4.1.A. European Union

2.EC.24. ECJ, 17 October 1989, Case 109/88, Handels- og KontorfunktionWrernes Forbund I Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening acting on behalf of Danfoss. equal pay and the burden of proof
2.EC.25. Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex

2.4.1.B. National Law and the Burden of Proof

United Kingdom
2.GB.26. Court of Appeal, 18 February 2005, Igen Ltd (Formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and Others v Wong; Chamberlin and Another v Emokpae; Webster v Brunel University. guidance on the application of the burden of proof
France
The Netherlands
2.NL.27. Equal Treatment Commission, Opinion 2003-41. racial discrimination and the burden of proof
2.NL.28. Equal Treatment Commission, Opinion 2004-67. disability discrimination and the burden of proof
2.IT.29. A Simoni, Report on measures to combat discrimination: Directive 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. country report Italy

2.4.1.C. Council of Europe

2.CoE.30. ECtHR, Grand Chamber, 6 July 2005, Nachova and others v Bulgaria. article 14 ECHR and the burden of proof
2.CoE.31. ECtHR, 13 December 2005, Timishev v Russia. article 14 and the burden of proof

2.4.2. Triggering a Shift in the Burden of Proof

2.4.2.A. Statistics

2.GB.32. Court of Appeal, 21 May 2004, Rihal v London Borough of Ealing. statistics and evidence of direct racial discrimination

2.4.2.B. Situation Testing

2.HU.33. Kisvárda Town Court, 28 November 2000. racial discrimination in entry to disco

2.5. Segregation

2.5.1. International, European and National Legal Instruments

2.HU.34. A Kádár and L Farkas, Report on measures to combat discrimination: Directive 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. country report Hungary

2.5.2. Case-Law on Segregation

2.EC.35. ECJ, 10 March 2003, Case C-196/02, Nikoloudi v Organismos Tilepikinonion Ellados AE (OTE). sex-specific category of workers
2.GB.36. Employment Appeals Tribunal, 14 November 1979, Pel Ltd v Modgill and others. racial segregation in employment
2.HU.37. Nyíregyháza Town Court, 1 December 1998, Anonymous Plaintiffs v Local Government of Tiszavasvári Town. roma segregation in education
2.RO.38. National Council for Combating Discrimination, 23 June 2003, Decision No 218 on Petition No 1704/12.05.2003 from the Roma Centre for Social Intervention and Research (Romani CRISS) in relation to Cehei School. roma segregation in education
2.RO.39. National Council for Combating Discrimination, 25 May 2004, Decision No 160 on Petition No 1174/11.05.2004. roma segregation in education

2.6. Justifications and Exceptions

2.6.1. Introduction

2.6.2. Justification of Direct Discrimination

2.6.2.A. Council of Europe

2.6.2.B. European Union

2.6.2.C. National Jurisdictions

2.6.3. Exceptions Applying to Several Discrimination Grounds

2.6.3.A. Genuine Occupational Requirements

2.NL.40. Dutch Decree of 19 May 1989 concerning the establishment of a governmental decree regarding occupational activities for which sex can be determinant
2.GB.41. House of Lords, 26 April 2004, R (Amicus-MSF and others) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Christian Action Research Education and others. sexual orientation requirements and organised religions
2.NL.42. M. Gijzen, Report on measures to combat discrimination: Directive 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. country report Netherlands
2.EC.43. ECJ, 15 May 1986, Case 222/84, Johnson v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). GOR exception and sex discrimination in policing
2.GB.44. Court of Appeal, 4 April 1990, Lambeth London Borough Council v Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). ethnicity requirements and GOR exceptions
2.DE.45. Federal Labour Court, 12 November 1998. sex as a genuine occupational requirement
2.NL.46. Equal Treatment Commission, Opinion 1997-51. advert for Moroccan male youth officer

2.6.2.B. Respect for Human Rights and Freedoms

2.EC.47. ECJ, 8 November 1983, Case 165/82, Commission v UK. privacy and the right to non-discrimination
2.IE.48. High Court, 10 June 2005, The Equality Authority v Portmarnock Golf Club and others. sex discrimination in membership of a golf club

2.6.3.C. Public Security Issues

2.EC.49. ECJ, 11 March 2003, Case C-186/01, Dory v Germany. national service and sex discrimination

2.6.3.D. Health and Safety

2.NL.50. Equal Treatment Commission, Opinion 2004-67. disability discrimination and the burden of proof
2.UK.51. Court of Appeal, 11 April 2001, Jones v Post Office. disability discrimination and health and safety

2.6.3.E. Provision of Financial Services

2.EC.52. D Schiek, Freedom of contract and a non-discrimination principle - irreconcilable antonyms?

2.6.4. Exceptions Applying to Specific Grounds of Discrimination

2.6.4.A. Sex

2.EC.53. ECJ, 12 July 1984, Case 184/83, Hofmann v Barmer Ersatzkasse. sex discrimination and paid maternity leave

2.6.4.B. Religion

2.NL.54. Equal Treatment Commission, Opinion 2003-112. restrictions on wearing religious symbols
2.NL.55. Equal Treatment Commission, Opinion 1998-38. religious ethos exception and sexual orientation

2.6.4.C. Age

2.EC.56. ECJ, 22 November 2005, Case C-144/04, Mangold v Helm. age discrimination in employment contracts
2.NL.57. Equal Treatment Commission, Opinion 2004-118. justification for age discrimination
2.Lv58. G Feldhune, Report on measures to combat discrimination: Directive 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. country report Latvia

2.7. Comparative Analysis