Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:42:08.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-Discrimination and the Many Faces of Private Law in the Union – Some Thoughts After the “Test-Achats” Judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Norbert Reich
Norbert Reich*
Affiliation:
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The case discusses the “Test-Achats” judgment of the ECJ in the overall context of the EU-non-discrimination principle in relations traditionally governed by private law and party autonomy. This principle has come from employment law and has been extended to consumption matters, at least with regard to such incriminated characteristics as gender, ethnic origin, and nationality. Even if the consequences of the ECJ judgment on the insurance market, including protection of insured persons themselves, by imposing “unisex”-tariffs from 21.12.2012 on may be viewed critically, the Court only draws the legal consequences of a prior decision of the EU legislator which cannot be delayed for an indefinite time span by the Member States (author's headnote).

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 283 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Judgment of 1 March 2011, ECR-I nyr.

2 T. Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law, 2nd ed., 2006, at pp. 59–64; N. Reich et al., Understanding EU Internal Market Law, 3rd ed., 2011, at para. 12.2; J. Basedow, “Grundsatz der Nichtdiskriminierung”, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) (2008), pp. 230 et sqq., at p. 232.

3 Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Ruckdeschel [1977] ECR 1753, para. 7; C-15/95, EARL de Kerlast v. Union régionale de coopératives agricoles (Unicopa) and Coopérative du Trieux [1997] ECR I-1961, at para. 35.

4 Case C-309/89 Codorniú Sa v. Council [1994] ECR I-1853.

5 For the general approach of the ECJ in applying the Charter even before its formal enactment see Case C-540/03 EP v. Council [2006] ECR I-5769; for a specific example see Case C-272/06 Productores de Música de Espana (Promusicae) v. Telefónica de Espana SAU [2008] ECR I-271, paras. 62–63 on the need to balance between the right to effective protection of property (copyright) and the right of protection of personal data and hence of private life in civil litigation between a rights management society and internet providers concerning disclosure of user data of copyrighted music.

6 The ECJ had recognised the extension of the general principle of non-discrimination with regard to sex in its seminal Case C-25/02 Katharina Rinke v. Ärztekammer Hamburg, [2003] ECR I-8349.

7 See Case 5/88 Wachauf v. Bundesamt für Ernährung [1989] I-2609, para. 19 and now Case C-279/09 DEB Deutsche Energiehandelsund Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, [2010] ECR I-(22.12.2010); K. Lenaerts/J. Gutiérrez-Fons, “The Constitutional Allocation of Powers and General Principles of EU Law”, CMLRev (2010), pp. 1629 et sqq., at p. 1660; a more restrictive opinion has been taken by Borowsky, in J. Meyer, Kommentar zur Charta (2005), Article 51 para. 14.

8 Basedow, supra note 2, at p. 249, expressly rejects any horizontal direct effect of Article 21 of the Charter.

9 Case 43/75 G. Defrenne v. SABENA, [1976] ECR 455; for details see Reich supra note *, at p. 59.

10 Joined Cases C-92/92 and 326/92 Phil Collins [1993] I-5145 concerning German copyright legislation which denied to authors and performers from other Member countries the right to prohibit marketing of phonograms manufactured without their consent where the performance was given outside is national territory.

11 C-101/08 Audiolux [2009] ECR I-9823 (15.10.2009).

12 Supra note 2, at p. 230.

13 At 250.

14 Case C-144/04 Werner Mangold v. Rüdiger Helm [2005] ECR I-9981.

15 Basedow, supra note 2, at p. 242; further references in the opinion of AG Sharpston in Case C-427/06 B. Bartsch v. Bosch and Siemens (BSH) Altersfürsorge [2008] ECR I-7245 which concerned the compatibility of a so-called “age-gap” clause in a pension scheme with primary (Article 13) or secondary (Directive2000/78) Community law.

16 21 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) (2006), p. 20.

17 Case C-411/05, Palacios de la Villa [2007] ECR I-8531.

18 Case C-249/96 Lisa Jacqueline Grant v. South-West trains [1998] ECR I-621; the EU-legislator reacted by Directive 2000/78; it is, however, not clear whether Grant would be decided differently, see Reich, Understanding EU Internal Market Law, supra note 2, at para. 12.26.

19 Case C-555/07 Seda Kücükdevici Swedex GmbH [2010] ECR I-(19.1.2010).

20 The order of the BVerfG of 6 July 2010, EuZW (2010), 828 concerning the constitutionality of the ECJ-judgment in Mangold (supra note 13) put strict limits on the ultra-vires control under German constitutional law by insisting that it will use its powers only in cases of a “sufficiently serious” (“hinreichend qualifiziert”) violation of competences: “This requires that the action of a Union authority be regarded as manifest and that the attacked act leads to a structurally important modification of competences to the detriment of Member States in the EU.”

21 BAG, 2 AZR 714/08, ZIP 2011, 444.

22 Case C-94/07 Raccanelli [2008] ECR I-5939.

23 Case C-353/06 Grunkin und Paul [2008] ECR I-7639; see already the opinion of AG Jacobs of 30.6.2005 in the preceding Case C-96/04 [2006] I-3561 where the ECJ, however, regarded the reference as inadmissible. In his earlier opinion of 9.12.1992 in Case C-168/01 Konstantinidis [1993] ECR I-1191, argued before the enactment of the citizenship concept in EU law, AG Jacobs pointed to the fundamental right of a person to his name as part of European citizenship: “civis Europeus sum”, at para. 46; the Court argued with the somewhat artificial market aspects of distorting the spelling of a name which may create confusion with potential clients of Mr. Konstantinidis and therefore restrict non proportionally his right to establishment.

24 Case C-148/02, [2003] ECR I-11613; for its importance on fundamental rights protection of economically inactive citizens see Elsmore, M. and Starup, P., “Union Citizenship – Background, Jurisprudence, and Perspective”, 57 YEL (2007), at p. 92 Google Scholar.

25 For an overview see D. Schiek et al. (eds), Non-discrimination law (2007), pp. 11–14; Reich, Understanding EU Internal Market Law, supra note 2, at para. 12.19; Basedow, supra note 2, at p. 238 differentiates between a genuine “prohibition of discrimination”, which is not the formulation of the Directives, and the need to “combat discrimination”, e.g. according to Article 1 Directive 2000/43; its Article 2 (1) formulates that “there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination based on race or ethnic origin.” Is the latter formula really a difference to a “prohibition” strictu sensu? Otherwise the need for effective sanctions would not be understandable. Obviously, the Member States have a certain amount of discretion on how to implement this obligation.

26 [2000] OJ L 180/22.

27 [2004] OJ L 373/37.

28 [2004] OJ L 16/44.

29 Reich, Understanding EU Internal Market Law, supra note 2, at para. 12.29; Schreier, M., “Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Wirklich ein Eingriff in die Vertragsfreiheit?”, KritJ (2007), pp. 278 et sqq. Google Scholar, at p. 285, referring to the somewhat misleading term in the implementing German legislation (AGG – Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz von 2006) “Massengeschäft” in contrast to “individual transactions” where personal characteristics of the partner are important.

30 At 240.

31 Reich, “The Interrelation Between Rights and Duties in EU Law: Reflections on the State of Liability Law in the Multilevel Governance System of the Union – Is there a Need for a more Coherent Approach in European Private Law?, in YEL (2010), pp. 112 et sqq., at p. 141.

32 Steindorff, EG-Vertrag und Privatrecht, 1996, at pp. 303 et sqq.

33 Case C-54/07 Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding (CGKR) v. Firma Feryn NV [2008] ECR I-5187; Reich, EuZW (2008), p. 229.

34 COM (2008) 426 final.

35 Supra note *.

36 Karpenstein, Critique U., “Harmonie durch die Hintertür? Geschlechtsspezifisch kalkulierte Versicherungstarife und das Diskriminierungsverbot”, EuZW (2010), p. 885 Google Scholar.

37 See Kosta, V., “Internal Market Legislation and the Private Law of the Member States – The Impact of Fundamental Rights”, ERCL (2010), p. 409 Google Scholar.

38 Concerning the constitionality of the exception under German law see F. Rödl, in Rust/Falke (eds), Kommentar zum AGG, § 20 para. 37 arguing that a differnetation concerning insurance tariffs are jsutified by objective reasons (“sachlicher Grund”). This argument can no longer be maintained due to the priority of EU law.

39 This is feared by many observers, see the article in Süddeutsche Zeitung of 19.3.2011, p. 32.

40 M. Ross, “Promoting Solidarity: From Public Service to a European Model of Competition?”, CMLRev. (2007), pp. 1057 et sqq., at p. 1070, insisting on the applicability of the general norm of Article 16 EC.

41 Consumer Policy strategy, COM (2002) para. 3.1.5; also COM (2007) 99 at para. 12, EU Consumer Policy Strategy 2007–2013.

42 Rott, P., “Consumers and Services of General Interest: Is EC Consumer Law the Future?”, JCP (2007), p. 53 Google Scholar; Reich, , “Crisis of Future of European Consumer Law?”, 3(20) Yearbook of Consumer law (2008, 2009)Google Scholar; Micklitz, H.-W., “The Visible Hand of European Regulatory Private Law”, YEL (2009), pp. 3 et sqq., at pp. 22 et sqq Google Scholar.

43 Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 2002 on universal service and user's rights relating to electronic communications, networks and services (Universal Services Directive) [2002] OJ L 108/51, amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of 19.12.2009, [2009] OJ L 337.

44 Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning Common Rules for the Internal Market for Electricity, [2003] OJ L 176, 32.

45 Rott, at p. 56; Micklitz, , “The Concept of Competitive Contract Law”, PennState (2005), pp. 549 et sqq., at p. 576Google Scholar; Chr. Willet, General Clauses on Fairness and the Promotion of Values important in Services of General Interest, in Twigg-Flesner, et al. (eds), The Yearbook of Consumer Law 2007 (Ashgate 2008), pp. 67 et sqq., at pp. 95–100Google Scholar.

46 [2009] OJ L 211/55.

47 [2007] OJ L 319; comment St. Grundmann/G. Hoffmann, ERCL 2010, pp. 467 et sqq., at p. 472.

48 Micklitz, supra note 42, at p. 23