The ECJ decision in mangold: A further twist on effects of directives and constitutional relevance of community equality legislation

Industrial Law Journal

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 329-341

  Schiek, Dagmar ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749148590     PISSN: 03059332     EISSN: 14643669     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/indlaw/dwl026     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. The ECJ has delivered five short decisions in infringement proceedings regarding Directive 2000/43/EC (see Case C-326/04 Commission v Greece, judgment of 25 September 2004,
2. Case C-327/05 Commission v Finland, judgment of 16 April 2005;
3. Case C-335/04 Commission v Austria, judgment of 14 May 2005;
4. Case C-320/04 Commission v Luxembourg, judgment of 16 May 2005;
5. Case C-329/04 Commission v Germany, judgment of 28 May 2005)
6. and Directive 2000/78/EC (Case C-43/05 Commission v Germany, judgment of 22 June 2006;
7. Case C-133/05 Commission v Austria, judgment of 22 June 2006;
8. Case C-70/105 Commission v Luxembourg).
9. Some cases refer to the new directives in their substantive reasoning. Hence, in Afari, the CFI considered that Directive 2000/43/EC would have to be relevant for Community / staff relations concerning racial harassment (T-11/03 [2004] ECR 11-267). In Vajnai, the ECJ issued an order of inadmissibility in a reference by a Hungarian criminal court asking whether prohibiting the wearing of the red star constitutes racial discrimination (Case C-328/04, judgment of 5 October 2005).
10. Directive 2000/43/EC aiming at equality irrespective of race and ethnic origin in employment and occupation, social advantages, education and provision of goods and services, directive 2000/78/EC establishing framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, covering discrimination on grounds of religion and belief, age, disability and sexual orientation, and directives 2002/73/EC and 2004/113 on gender equality in employment and occupation and provision of goods and services respectively.
11. After an early attempt to implement Directive 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC at least within the Civil Code (proposal of 2001, published in DB 2002, 470), the Schröder government had tabled a bill for an 'Anti-Discrimination-Act' in 2004, which was heavily disputed (BT-Drs 15/4538), which could not be adopted due to the premature end of term of that Government. Following the retabling of this bill by the Green Party in December 2005 (BT Drs 16/297, see http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/002/ 1600297.pdf),
12. the new government has now tabled its own bill in May 2006 (BR-DS 329/ 06, see http://www.bundesrat.de).
13. On specific German traditions of not integrating heterogeneity see U. Davy, Integration of Immigrants in Germany: A Slowly Evolving Concept, 7 European Journal of Migration and the Law (2005) 123-44, 125-6, 143-4.
14. For a detailed account of the proceedings before the labour court and the ECJ see M. Schmidt 'The Principle of Non-discrimination in Respect of Age: Dimensions of the ECJ's Mangold Judgment', 7 German Law Journal (2006) 505-24;
15. from a very critical perspective see J.H. Bauer, 'Ein Stück aus dem Tollhaus: Altersbefristung und der EuGH', Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht (2005) 801-3.
16. This openly partial note takes up the tradition of referring to a lawyer's political affiliation, criticising Mr Helm for being left-wing. The assumption that the case was provoked rather than real litigation is shared by U. Preis, 'Verbot der Altersdiskriminierung als Gemeinschaftsgrundrecht', Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht (2006) 401-13.
17. See M. Schmidt (2006) above at 519.
18. This aspect of the decision, however, is particularly disputed in German doctrine, though. See U. Preis (2006) above at 407 asking whether the ECJ is prepared to introduce the EU Constitution - albeit only in relation to fundamental rights - through the backdoor of case law'.
19. Doing so, the ECJ would follow the example of the Belgian Cour d'Arbitrage, which invalidated the 2003 Belgian legislation implementing the Article 13 Directives insofar as it provided a closed list of grounds (judgment of 6 October 2004, No 157/2004).