Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:55:53.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Obligation to Contract and the German General Act on Equal Treatment (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Joachim Wiemann

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The German General Act on Equal Treatment (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, AGG) has been in force for four years now. Academic discussion has so far mainly focused on the scope of anti-discrimination provisions for non-state actors, i.e. on whether there should be private anti-discrimination legislation, what conduct the statute should prohibit, and what exceptions it should allow. In order to fully understand the effects and relevance of anti-discrimination provisions in a legal system, their remedies and sanctions have to be taken into account as well. This article focuses on the remedies provided for in the AGG and, more specifically, on obligations to contract. The issue of whether there is and whether there should be an obligation to contract has – as regards remedies – been the most controversial issue in the academic discussion so far.

Type
German/European Law Conversation Series
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 10 , October 2010 , pp. 1131 - 1146
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 For a full English version of the AGG, see the translation of the Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes (Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency), available at http://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/ADS-en/Service/downloads,did=129628.html (last accessed 16 October 2010).Google Scholar

2 For discussions on the AGG and previous drafts of a German anti-discrimination statute, see Engert, Andreas, Allied by Surprise? The Economic Case For an Anti-Discrimination Statute, 4 Germ. L.J. 685 (2003), http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=290; Karl-Heinz Ladeur, The German Proposal of an “Anti-Discrimination”-Law: Anticonstitutional and Anti-Common Sense. A Response to Nicola Vennemann, 3 Germ. L.J. (2002), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=152; Eduard Picker, Anti-discrimination as a Program of Private Law?, 4 Germ. L.J. 771 (2003); Florian Stork, Comments on the Draft of the New German Private Law Anti-Discrimination Act: Implementing Directives 2000/43/EC and 2004/113/EC in German Private Law, 6 Germ. L.J. 533 (2005), http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=574; Nicola Vennemann, The German Draft Legislation On the Prevention of Discrimination in the Private Sector, 3 Germ. L.J. (2002), http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=137; Viktor Winkler, The Planned German Anti-Discrimination Act: Legal Vandalism? A Response to Karl-Heinz Ladeur, 3 Germ. L.J. (2002), http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=158.Google Scholar

3 See, inter alia, Gregor Thüsing & Konrad von Hoff, Vertragsschluss als Folgenbeseitigung: Kontrahierungszwang im zivilrechtlichen Teil des Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes, 60 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 21 (2007); Christian Armbrüster, Kontrahierungszwang im Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, 60 NJW 1494 (2007); Christian Armbrüster, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz – ein neuer Anlauf, 38 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 43 (2005); Dagmar Schiek, § 21, in Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG) (Dagmar Schiek ed., 2007) margin number 8; Jörg Neuner, Diskriminierungsschutz durch Privatrecht, 58 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 57 (2003).Google Scholar

4 The scope of application is extended for discrimination based on race or ethnic origin (§ 19 (2) AGG) and—unlike for the other grounds—the AGG does not provide for justifications under § 20 (1) AGG.Google Scholar

5 See, inter alia, supra note 3. For the assumptions made for this article as regards prohibitions of discrimination, see below D. I. 1.Google Scholar

6 See also the arguments for different treatment of state and non-state action in Matthias Mahlmann, Die Ethik des Gleichbehandlungsrechts, in Gleichbehandlungsrecht 33, 48 (Beate Rudolf & Matthias Mahlmann eds., 2007).Google Scholar

7 Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000, O.J. 2000 L 180/22 (implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:180:0022:0026:en:PDF (last accessed 16 October 2010).Google Scholar

8 Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004, O.J. 2004 L 373/37 (implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:373:0037:0043:EN:PDF (last accessed 16 October 2010).Google Scholar

9 The European Union replaced and succeeded the European Community with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (Art. 1 (3) (3) Treaty on European Union (TEU)). This contribution therefore uses the term “EU Directive.”Google Scholar

10 See Art. 288 (3) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).Google Scholar

11 See below C. III. for the requirements of the directives for remedies under national law.Google Scholar

12 Translation of the Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes (see supra, note 1).Google Scholar

13 Sonja Haberl, Antidiskriminierungsrecht und Sanktionensystem: Die Konkretisierung gemeinschaftsrechtlicher Mindestvorgaben, 6 Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht (GPR) 202, 205 (2009); Schiek, supra note 3, § 21, margin number 9.Google Scholar

14 See Bachmann, Gregor, Kontrahierungspflicht im privaten Bankrecht, 18 Zeitschrift für Bankrecht und Bankwirtschaft (ZBB) 257, 266 (2006).Google Scholar

15 § 22 (2) ADG-E, BT-Drucks 15/4538.Google Scholar

16 § 22 (1) ADG-E, BT-Drucks 15/4538.Google Scholar

17 BT-Drucks 15/4538, 43; Florian Stork, Das Gesetz zum Schutz vor Diskriminierungen im Zivilrecht, 8 Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien (ZEuS) 49 (2005).Google Scholar

18 See Thüsing & Hoff, supra note 3, at 22; see also Schiek, supra note 3, § 21, margin number 8.Google Scholar

19 See Christian Armbrüster, Der allgemein-zivilrechtliche Teil des Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes, in Gleichbehandlungsrecht 257, 316 (Beate Rudolf & Matthias Mahlmann eds., 2007).Google Scholar

20 Id. at 315.Google Scholar

21 See Bachmann, supra note 14, at 266.Google Scholar

22 Gregor Thüsing, § 19 AGG, in Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, margin number 22 (Franz Jürgen Säcker & Roland Rixecker eds., 2007).Google Scholar

23 For an interpretation in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights, see Bundesverfassungsgericht, [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1481/04, 14 October 2004, BVerfGE 111, 307.Google Scholar

24 See also ECJ, Case C-397/01, Bernhard Pfeiffer et al. v. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, 2004 E.C.R. I-8835, para. 114.Google Scholar

25 The EU legislative materials also do not address obligations to contract.Google Scholar

26 The German federal government, in the legislative materials, interprets the directives as not to require punitive damages. BT-Drucks 16/1780, 46.Google Scholar

27 ECJ, Case C-177/88, Dekker v. Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen (VJV-Centrum) Plus, 2004 E.C.R. I-3941; Case C-180/1995, Draehmpaehl v. Urania Immobilienservice OHG, 1997 E.C.R. I-2195.Google Scholar

28 See Armbrüster, supra note 3, at 1494 (arguing that there is general agreement that the EU directives leave it to the Member States whether to provide an obligation to contract).Google Scholar

29 See, inter alia, Thüsing & Hoff, supra note 3, at 22.Google Scholar

30 A similar explicit statement could be found in former § 611a (2) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [Civil Code - BGB].Google Scholar

31 See Christian Armbrüster, Bedeutung des Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes für private Versicherungsverträge, 57 Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 1297, 1303 (2006); Thüsing & Hoff, supra note 3, at 22.Google Scholar

32 See Posner, Richard, Economic Analysis of Law 566 (7th ed., 2007) (discussing the possibility of a compromise in the legislative proceedings where opponents might have had enough influence to limit the remedies in a statute to a less than optimal level).Google Scholar

33 The situation for the violation of anti-discrimination provisions is not identical to the situation of a breach of contract, but there are some similarities. To a certain extent, therefore, the argumentation in this paper relies on the principle under German law that specific performance is available for breach of contract as a default remedy and that the plaintiff is not generally restricted to damages only.Google Scholar

34 The argument in Schiek, supra note 3, § 21, margin number 9 appears to go in the same direction.Google Scholar

35 See Rudolf, Beate, Gleichbehandlungsrecht und Öffentliches Recht, in Gleichbehandlungsrecht 186, 192 (Beate Rudolf & Matthias Mahlmann eds., 2007). Some scholars have also seen the primary objective in the protection of dignity and the access to goods and services only as a less important, secondary, objective. See Thüsing & Hoff, supra note 3, at 22 (with reference to the legislative materials, BT-Drucks 16/1780, 20, 33, and 46).Google Scholar

36 See Armbrüster, supra note 3, at 1494; Neuner, supra note 3, at 64.Google Scholar

37 BT-Drucks 16/1780, 23–25.Google Scholar

38 COM (1999) 566 final, 25 November 1999, 5, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:1999:0566:FIN:EN:PDF (last accessed 16 October 2010).Google Scholar

39 See, inter alia, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717 (1992).Google Scholar

40 BT-Drucks 16/1780, 24.Google Scholar

41 For housing discrimination and its results (segregation, lack of educational opportunities, etc.), see Hirsch, Werner, Law and Economics 334 (3rd ed., 1999).Google Scholar

42 BT-Drucks 16/1780, 23.Google Scholar

43 See Shavell, Steven, Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law 479 (2004).Google Scholar

44 For the effect on incentives, see Shavell, supra note 43, at 244.Google Scholar

45 See Posner, supra note 32, at 25; for an analysis of anti-discrimination provisions in private law and reasons for discrimination see Engert, supra note 2.Google Scholar

46 See, e.g., the case law of the Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice - BGH] on the relevance of preventive aspects for the determination of the amount of damages available for violations of the victim's personality rights (Allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht), BGH NJW 1995, 861.Google Scholar

47 See supra D. I. 3.; Shavell, supra note 43, at 479.Google Scholar

48 On this argument and on the fact that even the optimal level of deterrence is characterized by under-deterrence so that the fair market price argument does not apply see Shavell, supra note 43, at 488.Google Scholar

49 See Armbrüster, supra note 3, at 1496.Google Scholar

50 There is remarkably little discussion about the appropriateness of public enforcement in German academic discussion (e.g. civil penalties like in the U.S. Americans With Disabilities Act, Title III, 42 U.S.C. § 12188 (b) (2) (C)).Google Scholar

51 See Haberl, supra note 13, at 205.Google Scholar

52 See Busche, Jan, Effektive Rechtsdurchsetzung und Sanktionen bei Verletzung richtliniendeterminierter Diskriminierungsverbote, in: Diskriminierungsschutz durch Privatrecht, 159, 174 (Stefan Leible & Monika Schlachter eds., 2006); Haberl, supra note 13, at 205.Google Scholar

53 The argument that damages are more appropriate than an obligation to contract is often based on the interpretation that the AGG only protects the victim's dignity and that the insult cannot be compensated for by the conclusion of the contract. See Thüsing, supra note 22, § 21, margin number 34.Google Scholar

54 See Shavell, supra note 43, at 483.Google Scholar

55 See, inter alia, Armbrüster, supra note 3, at 1496.Google Scholar

56 On the two level model see supra D. I. 1.Google Scholar

57 See the examples in BT-Drucks 15/4538, 44; Busche supra note 52, at 173.Google Scholar

58 See Thüsing, supra note 22, § 21, margin number 29 and 30.Google Scholar

59 See Busche, supra note 52, at 174.Google Scholar

60 ECJ, Case 11/1970, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v. Einfuhr- und Vorratstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, 1974 E.C.R. 1125; Bundesverfassungsgericht, Case No. 2 BvR 197/93, 22 October 1986, BVerfGE 73, 339 (Solange II).Google Scholar

61 See supra C. III.Google Scholar

62 See Stork, supra note 17, at 50.Google Scholar

63 Eduard Picker, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz – Der Anfang vom Ende der Privatautonomie?, 57 JZ 880 (2002); Katharina von Koppenfels, Das Ende der Vertragsfreiheit?, 56 Wertpapier-Mitteilungen (WM) 1489, 1491 (2002).Google Scholar

64 See Armbrüster, supra note 3, at 1497.Google Scholar

65 See Thüsing & von Hoff, supra note 3, at 25.Google Scholar

66 See the examples in the legislative materials, BT-Drucks 16/1780, 39.Google Scholar

67 BT-Drucks 16/1780, 40.Google Scholar

68 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Case No. 1 BvR 409/90, 6 May 1997, BVerfGE 96, 56, 64; Case No. 1 BvF 1,2,3,4,5,6/74, 25 February 1975, BVerfGE 39, 1, 45.Google Scholar

69 See Bundesverfassungsgericht, Case No. 1 BvR 26/84, 7 February 1990, BVerfGE 81, 242.Google Scholar

70 See von Koppenfels, supra note 63, at 1492.Google Scholar

71 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Case No. 1 BvR 258/86, 16 November 1993, BVerfGE 89, 276, 285.Google Scholar

72 See Deinert, Olaf, § 21, in Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, margin number 81 (Wolfgang Däubler & Martin Bertzbach eds., 2nd ed., 2008).Google Scholar

73 This aspect is often seen as self-evident and not even expressly mentioned in many publications. For the EU legal order see also Art. 3 (3) (2) TEU and Art. 8 and 10 TFEU.Google Scholar

74 See Art. 6 TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.Google Scholar