European Union

The Civil Liberties Committee urges the Commission to evaluate “first wave” national measures to assess their impact on citizens’ rights and freedoms.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The Civil Liberties Committee urges the Commission to evaluate “first wave” national measures to assess their impact on citizens’ rights and freedoms.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

AMENDMENTS 318 - 597 - Draft report Human Rights and Democracy in the World 2019 and the European Union’s policy on the matter - annual report 2019
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Isabel Santos

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The Internal Market Committee proposed a series of measures to strengthen consumer protection and enhance product safety and sustainability.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The Internal Market Committee proposed a series of measures to strengthen consumer protection and enhance product safety and sustainability.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 446 - Draft report Report on the implementation of the EU Association Agreement with Ukraine
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Michael Gahler

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The situation on the Greek islands following the destruction of the Moria refugee camp will be the focus of a debate in the Civil Liberties Committee on Tuesday afternoon.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The situation on the Greek islands following the destruction of the Moria refugee camp will be the focus of a debate in the Civil Liberties Committee on Tuesday afternoon.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Length of video : 25'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 196 - Draft report The effects of climate change on human rights and the role of environmental defenders on this matter
Committee on Foreign Affairs
María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

This week MEPs will decide on their priorities for the 2021 budget, consider how the pandemic has affected fundamental values and hold the first European Gender Equality Week.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

This week MEPs will decide on their priorities for the 2021 budget, consider how the pandemic has affected fundamental values and hold the first European Gender Equality Week.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Length of video : 76'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

MEPs set out their priorities on digital service rules, artificial intelligence and EU farm policy during the 19-23 October plenary session.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The EU’s future farm policy should be more flexible, sustainable, and crisis-resilient, so that farmers can continue to deliver food security across the EU.
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Following today’s vote on the EU farm policy reform, the Chair of Parliament’s Agriculture Committee and the three lead MEPs have issued the following statements.
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

In the framework of the Gender Equality Week, the SEDE Subcommittee will hold on 29 October 2020 an exchange of views on the 20th Anniversary of UNSC Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) including a focus on women in CSDP. The emphasis will be on progress achieved in ensuring full participation of women in peace processes around the world. Members will also assess additional steps that need to be taken to further enhance the role of women in all phases of peacebuilding, while increasing in particular the number of women taking part in the decision-making process. The debate will also include a focus on women in CSDP missions/operations and actions taken by the EU and its Member States to fully implement UNSCR 1325 on WPS.

FEMM committee announcement - European Gender Equality Week 2020
EP press release on European Gender Equality Week 2020
Meeting documents and draft agenda of the SEDE meeting on 28/29 October 2020
Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

ECJ’s interpretation of Community law must be useful to the national court

 It should be noted, at the outset, that Article 234 EC does not empower the Court to apply rules of Community law to a particular case, but only to rule on the interpretation of the EC Treaty and of acts adopted by European Community institutions (see, inter alia, Case 100/63 van der Veen [1964] ECR 565, 572, and Case C‑203/99 Veedfald [2001] ECR I‑3569, paragraph 31). The Court may, however, in the framework of the judicial cooperation provided for by that article and on the basis of the material presented to it, provide the national court with an interpretation of Community law which may be useful to it in assessing the effects of one or other of its provisions (Case 20/87 Gauchard [1987] ECR 4879, paragraph 5, and Joined Cases C‑515/99, C‑519/99 to C‑524/99 and C‑526/99 to C‑540/99 Reisch and Others [2002] ECR I‑2157, paragraph 22). (C-54/07, par.19)

Public statements that constitute direct discrimination; an identification of the victim is not required

Nevertheless, it cannot be inferred from (…) that the lack of an identifiable complainant leads to the conclusion that there is no direct discrimination within the meaning of Directive 2000/43. The aim of that directive, as stated in recital 8 of its preamble, is ‘to foster conditions for a socially inclusive labour market’. For that purpose, Article 3(1)(a) states that the directive covers, inter alia, selection criteria and recruitment conditions. (C-54/07, par.23)

 The fact that an employer declares publicly that it will not recruit employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin, something which is clearly likely to strongly dissuade certain candidates from submitting their candidature and, accordingly, to hinder their access to the labour market, constitutes direct discrimination in respect of recruitment within the meaning of Directive 2000/43. The existence of such direct discrimination is not dependant on the identification of a complainant who claims to have been the victim. (C-54/07, par.25)

Distinguishing direct discrimination (the conceptual requirement) from the legal procedures (the practical minimum) implies a space for Member States to introduce higher protection in that regard.

The question of what constitutes direct discrimination within the meaning of Directive 2000/43 must be distinguished from that of the legal procedures provided for in Article 7 of that directive for a finding of failure to comply with the principle of equal treatment and the imposition of sanctions in that regard. Those legal procedures must, in accordance with the provisions of that article, be available to persons who consider that they have suffered discrimination. However, the requirements of Article 7 of Directive 2000/43 are, as stated in Article 6 thereof, only minimum requirements and the Directive does not preclude Member States from introducing or maintaining provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment. (C-54/07, par.26)

It is up to the national court to assess according to the national legislation, whether an actio popularis in the name of employment equality is permitted.

Consequently, Article 7 of Directive 2000/43 does not preclude Member States from laying down, in their national legislation, the right for associations with a legitimate interest in ensuring compliance with that directive, or for the body or bodies designated pursuant to Article 13 thereof, to bring legal or administrative proceedings to enforce the obligations resulting therefrom without acting in the name of a specific complainant or in the absence of an identifiable complainant. It is, however, solely for the national court to assess whether national legislation allows such a possibility. (C-54/07, par.27)

The presumption of Discrimination; the defendant carries the burden of proof

Article 8 of Directive 2000/43 states in that regard that, where there are facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, it is for the defendant to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment. The precondition of the obligation to adduce evidence in rebuttal which thus arises for the alleged perpetrator of the discrimination is a simple finding that A PRESUMPTION OF DISCRIMINATION has arisen on the basis of established facts. (C-54/07, par.30)

Public statements give rise to the presumption

Statements by which an employer publicly lets it be known that, under its recruitment policy, it will not recruit any employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin may constitute facts of such a nature as to give rise to a presumption of a discriminatory recruitment policy. (C-54/07, par.31)

The content of the adduced evidence

It is, thus, for that employer to adduce evidence that it has not breached the principle of equal treatment, which it can do, inter alia, by showing that the actual recruitment practice of the undertaking does not correspond to those statements. (C-54/07, par.32)

The national court will assess the sufficiency of the evidence

It is for the national court to verify that the facts alleged against that employer are established and to assess the sufficiency of the evidence which the employer adduces in support of its contentions that it has not breached the principle of equal treatment. (C-54/07, par.33)

The scope of the sanctions

Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 confers on Member States responsibility for determining the rules on sanctions for breaches of national provisions adopted pursuant to that directive. Article 15 specifies that those sanctions must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and that they may comprise the payment of compensation to the victim. (C-54/07, par.36)

The scope of discretion granted to Member States; de minimis EU requirements

Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 thus imposes on Member States the obligation to introduce into their national legal systems measures which are sufficiently effective to achieve the aim of that directive and to ensure that they may be effectively relied upon before the national courts in order that judicial protection will be real and effective. Directive 2000/43 does not, however, prescribe a specific sanction, but leaves Member States free to choose between the different solutions suitable for achieving its objective. (C-54/07, par.37)

The form of the sanctions

If it appears appropriate to the situation at issue in the main proceedings, those sanctions may, where necessary, include a finding of discrimination by the court or the competent administrative authority in conjunction with an adequate level of publicity, the cost of which is to be borne by the defendant. They may also take the form of a prohibitory injunction, in accordance with the rules of national law, ordering the employer to cease the discriminatory practice, and, where appropriate, a fine. They may, moreover, take the form of the award of damages to the body bringing the proceedings. (C-54/07, par.39)

 

The post ECJ, C-54/07 – Feryn; Implications of a discrimination in terms of the recruitment process appeared first on Ideas on Europe.