Case C-273/97, Angela Maria Sirdar v. The Army Board, Secretary of State for Defence. Judgment of the Full Court of 26 October 1999, nyr; Case C-285/98, Tanja Kreil v. Germany. Judgment of the Full Court of 11 January 2000, nyr.

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 1433-1444

  Langer, Jurian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85102837393     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: 18758320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.54648/315873     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. 1. For details see Bundesverwaltungsgericht, ruling of 20 May 1999 and of 10 Nov. 1999.
2. 2. See inter alia“Gleichstellungsgebot auch in der Bundeswehr, Europäisches Urteil gegen das Bewaffnungsverbot fϋr Frauen”, Neue Zϋrcher Zeitung, 12 Jan. 2000; “Bϋrgerin in Uniform”, Die Zeit, 12 Jan. 2000; “Court of Justice verdict on women’s access to military employment causes strong reactions by German MEPs”, Agence Europe, number 7653, 13 Jan. 2000; and comment by German defence Minister Scharping, The Daily Telegraph, 12 Jan. 2000. See for further legal comments note 23 infra.
3. 3. See Zuleeg, “The European constitution under constitutional constraints: The German scenario”, 22 EL Rev. (1997), 19 at 19. For some general work on the Maastricht ruling, Ever-ling, “The Maastricht judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court and its significance for the development of the European Union”, 14 YEL (1994), 1; Herdegen, “Maastricht and the German Constitutional Court: Constitutional restraints for an ever closer union”, 31 CML Rev. (1994), 235; Meesen, “Hedging European Integration: The Maastricht Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany”, 17 Fordham International Law Journal (1994), 511; Wieland, “Germany in the European Union – The Maastricht Decision of the Bundesver-fassungsgericht”, 5 European Journal of International Law (hereafter EJIL) (1994), 259–266. Some work on the Bananas case, Everling, “Will Europe slip on Bananas? The Bananas judgment of the Court of Justice and national courts”, 33 CML Rev. (1996), 401; Reich, “Judge-made ‘Europe a´ la carte’: Some remarks on recent conflicts between European and German constitutional law provoked by the Bananas litigation”, 7 EJIL (1996), 103.
4. 4. See Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 Feb. 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, O.J. 1976, L 39/40, hereinafter the Directive.
5. 5. Case 222/84, Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, [1986] ECR 1651, particularly at paras. 24 and 26.
6. 6. Opinion of A.G. La Pergola, Sirdar, delivered on 18 May 1999, para 15.
7. 7. Ibid., para 21.
8. 8. Ibid., paras. 24–27.
9. 9. Para 35, and Case 318/86, Commission v. France, [1988] ECR 3559, at para 25.
10. 10. Para 42.
11. 11. Opinion of A.G. La Pergola, Kreil, delivered on 26 Oct. 1999, para 13.
12. 12. Para 16.
13. 13. Para 30.
14. 14. Paras. 33–38.
15. 15. Sirdar judgment and Kreil judgment, paras. 15–16 of both rulings.
16. 16. Ibid.
17. 17. Para 18 of both rulings. See Case C-1/95, Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern, [1997] ECR I-5253, at 18 and also Case 248/83, Commission v. Germany, [1985] ECR 1459, at 16.
18. 18. Sirdar judgment, paras. 23–24 and Kreil judgment, paras. 20–21.
19. 19. Ibid., para 28 and ibid., para 25.
20. 20. Sirdar judgment paras. 29–31.
21. 21. Kreil judgment, paras. 27–29.
22. 22. Para 15 of both rulings.
23. 23. For some critical German remarks see Doehring, “Vorwärts Amazonen!”, 3 RIW (2000), Die erste Seite; Götz, “Kreil”, 8 JZ (2000), 411; Kämmerer, “Gleichberechtigung am Gewehr”, 1 EuR (2000), 102; Scholz, “Europarecht verlangt Ö ffnung der Streitkräfte”, 3 RIW (2000), 220; Stahn, “Streitkräfte im Wandel – Zu den Auswirkungen der EuGH-Urteile Sirdar und Kreil auf das deutsche Recht”, 5/6 EuGRZ (2000), 121; Stein, “EuGH:Frauen in der Bundeswehr”, 7 EuZW (2000), 211. See in English: Koutrakos, “Community Law and equal treatment in the armed forces”, 25 EL Rev. (2000), 433, and in Dutch; Tobler, “Gelijke behandeling en militaire arbeidsverhoudingen”, 3 NTER (2000), 59. Koutrakos’ compelling article mainly focuses on the Sirdar ruling, Art. 297 (ex 224) EC and the actual application of the proportionality principle rather than the constitutional implications for Germany. See more generally on that provision, in this Review Koutrakos “Is Article 297 EC a ‘reserve of sovereignty’?”, 1339–1362.
24. 24. See Stein, op. cit. supra note 23, at 214.
25. 25. See Scholz, op. cit. supra note 23, at 222.
26. 26. See Doehring. op. cit. at Die erste Seite.
27. 27. Case 186/87, Cowan, [1989] ECR 195.
28. 28. See also Koutrakos op. cit. (EL Rev.) supra note 23 at 435–436.
29. 29. Para 6 of the A.G.’s Opinion in Sirdar.
30. 30. Case C-357/89, Raulin v. Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen, [1992] ECR I-1027 and Case C-274/96, Bickel & Franz, [1998] ECR 7637.
31. 31. Case 107/94, Asscher, [1996] ECR I-3089.
32. 32. Case C-70/94, Fritz Werner Industrie-Ausrϋstungen v. Deutschland, [1995] ECR I-3189 and Case C-83/94, Leifer e.a., [1995] ECR I-3231. Of a more recent date is case C-124/95, The Queen, ex parte Centro-Com SrL v. HM Treasury and Bank of England, [1997] ECR I-81. See Koutrakos, op. cit. at 436–437 and also Peers, “National security and European law”, 16 YEL (1996), 363.
33. 33. See Koutrakos (CML Rev.) op. cit. supra note 23.
34. 34. Art. 3 of the Directive.
35. 35. Sirdar Opinion, para 29.
36. 36. See More, “The principle of equal treatment: From market unifier to fundamental right?” in Craig and De Burca (Eds.), The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford, 1999), at pp. 544 and 548. For more details on the Court’s case law on sex equality law, Fenwick and Hervey, “Sex equality in the Single Market: New directions for the European Court of Justice”, 32 CML Rev. (1995), 443; Mancini and O’Leary, “The new frontiers of sex equality law in the European Union”, 24 EL Rev. (1999), 331.
37. 37. See note 15 supra.
38. 38. See also Ellis, “Recent developments in European Community sex equality law”, 35 CML Rev. (1998), 379, at 380.
39. 39. Gerster, cited supra note 17, para 18.
40. 40. See note 7, Opinion of A.G. in Kreil. For some German work on the interpretation of Art. 12a of the Grundgesetz see inter alia Götz, op. cit. supra note 23 at 415, footnote 12.
41. 41. See Doehring, op. cit. supra note 23 at Die erste Seite; Stahn, op. cit. supra note 23 at 131 and see also earlier suggestions by Zuleeg, “Frauen in der Bundeswehr”, (1997) DÖ V 1017. Postscript: since the German Parliament adopted legislation to change the Constitution this is no longer a feasible option. See “Bundestag beschliesst Grundgesetz-Ä nderungen”, S ϋddeutsche Zeitung, 28/29 Oct. 2000, at 5.
42. 42. See Everling, op. cit. (CML Rev.) supra note 3 at 435.
43. 43. See notes 4 and 7 supra.
44. 44. See Götz, op. cit. supra note 23, at 416. Ultimately, the rulings resulted in constitutional changes, see S ϋddeutsche Zeitung, op. cit. supra note 41, 4 and 5.
45. 45. See reaction by Wuermeling (MEP), Agence Europe, op. cit. supra note 2.