1. Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome establishes salary equity between men and women.Google Scholar

2. For a detailed account of the history of equity policy in the EU, see Hoskyns, Catherine, Integrating Gender , Verso, London, 1996.Google Scholar

3. See Pierson, Paul and Leibfried, Stephan (eds), European Social Policy: Between Fragmentation and Integration , The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1995; Hervey, Tamara K. and O'Keefe, David (eds), Sex Equality Law in the European Union, Wiley, New York, 1996; Hoskyns, Catherine, ‘A Study of Four Action Programmes on Equal Opportunities’, in Rossilli, Mariagrazia (ed.), Gender Policies in the European Union, Peter Lang, New York, 2000, pp. 43–59. Equal opportunities is one of the pillars of the European Employment Strategy. See Rubery, Jill, ‘Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality on the EU: The Impact of the EU Employment Strategy’, Industrial Relations Journal, 33, 5, 2002, pp. 500–22.Google Scholar

4. Mazey, Sonia, ‘The European Union and Women's Rights: From the Europeanization of National Agendas to the Nationalization of a European Agenda?’, Journal of European Public Policy , 5, 1, 1998, pp. 131–52.Google Scholar

5. Stetson, Dorothy McBride and Mazur, Amy G. (eds), Comparative State Feminism , Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995.Google Scholar

6. Equal treatment is one of the central elements in European policy on equality of opportunity for men and women and on anti-discrimination. See Bell, Mark, Anti-Discrimination Law and the European Law , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.Google Scholar

7. The research on Italy's performance in the two decision-making processes studied here is based on interviews with government officials from the Department for European Affairs, the Department for Equal Opportunities and members of Italy's Permanent Representation specializing in social affairs. I thank them for their collaboration.Google Scholar

8. Guadagnini, Marila, ‘The Late-Comers: Italy's Equal Status and Equal Opportunity Agencies’, in Stetson, McBride and Mazur, , Comparative State Feminism , pp. 150–67.Google Scholar

9. Interview, Rome, 22 October 2003.Google Scholar

10. Interview, Rome, 23 October 2003.Google Scholar

11. The work of the Council of Ministers is organized through sectoral working groups composed of members of the Permanent Representation, representatives of the Commission and delegations of national officials. Research suggests that 70 per cent of Council decisions are taken in these groups. See Beyers, Jan and Dierick, Guido, ‘The Working Groups of the Council of Ministers of the European Union: Supranational or Intergovernmental Negotiations?’, Journal of Common Market Studies , 36, 3, 1998, pp. 289–317.Google Scholar

12. Interview, Rome, 22 October 2003.Google Scholar

13. COM (1999) 565 final.Google Scholar

14. The proposals were tied to the introduction of the Treaty of Amsterdam which states in Article 13 that: ‘Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.’ Google Scholar

15. COM (1999) 565 def (p. 7).Google Scholar

16. Published in OJ C 226/1, 8 August 2000 and OJ C 204/82, 18 July 2000, respectively.Google Scholar

17. Interview, Rome, 22 October 2003.Google Scholar

18. The official at the Department of Equal Opportunities was not able to provide an interpretation of this provision. Interview in Rome, 22 October 2003.Google Scholar

19. Interview in Rome, 22 October 2003.Google Scholar

20. The activities of the working group, coordinated by the member-state holding the Presidency, are opened ‘going around the table’-that is, each delegation presents its position with regard to the text and successive meetings are a continuous re-writing and modification of the original text until an agreement is reached, or at least until each delegation is satisfied. Interview, Rome, 22 October 2003.Google Scholar

21. The crisis of the D'Alema government, which had succeeded the Prodi government on 27 October 1998, began on 19 December 1999 and led to the formation of a second D'Alema government that lasted until 19 April 2000. On 25 April 2000, the Amato government was formed and lasted until the end of the legislature (May 2001).Google Scholar

22. Interview, Rome, 22 October 2003.Google Scholar

23. One official in the delegation stated: ‘Germany has 90 million inhabitants. They are many more than us and there was nothing we could do about it. Even when it comes to discussing the texts, if they are not in German, the delegation refuses to discuss them.’ Interview, Rome, 22 October 2003.Google Scholar

24. The co-decision procedure states that a Commission proposal is adopted after first reading if the Council of Ministers and the EP agree on the text. If they do not, a conciliation committee is set up to find a compromise text that is acceptable to both institutions. If the conciliation committee cannot come to an agreement, the EP can vote to reject the proposal with an absolute majority. The relative weight of the member-states when the Council voted according to a qualified majority (QMV) was as follows: Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom, 10 votes each; Spain, 8; Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal, 5; Austria and Sweden, 4; Denmark, Ireland and Finland, 3; Luxembourg, 2. Prior to the Amsterdam Treaty revision, equity policy was based on Article 119, which established the consultation procedure with the EP and unanimity in the Council.Google Scholar

25. Directive 76/207/CE was the first communitarian act for the application of the principle of equal treatment of women and men in the labour market. The Directive did not define the concepts of direct or indirect discrimination, nor contemplate the situation of harassment nor provide protection for pregnant workers. It was the interpretative activity of the ECJ which defined the concept of indirect discrimination (Case 170/84) and enlarged the scope of the Directive by covering, for example, the dismissal of transsexuals (Case C-13/94) and pregnant workers’ protection (Cases C- 177/88, C-179/88). For more details see Show, J., ‘Importing Gender: The Challenge of Feminism and the Analysis of the EU Legal Order’, Journal of European Public Policy , 7, 3, 2000, pp. 406–31.Google Scholar

26. COM(2000) 0334 Google Scholar

27. UNICE Position Paper, Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 76/207, 5 October 2000.Google Scholar

28. CES0060/2001.Google Scholar

29. In the co-decision procedure, the Council and the EP are legislators on the same level, as they share legislative power and the final text must be approved jointly.Google Scholar

30. A5-0173/2001 final, 16 May 2001.Google Scholar

31. GU C 337 E, 28 November 2000.Google Scholar

32. COM/2001/321/final.Google Scholar

33. The common position was the result of the meeting of the Employment and Social Affairs Council on 11 June 2001. It was decided that the agreement would be formalized at the beginning of the Belgian Presidency in July. According to an interview with an official in the Department for European Affairs, the negotiations between the national delegations took place while Katia Bellillo was Minister for Equal Opportunities (she was in office until June 2001). The new minister in the centre-right government, Stefania Prestigiacomo, took office when the negotiations had already ended.Google Scholar

34. GU C 307, 31 October 2001.Google Scholar

35. A5-0358/2001, 17 October 2001.Google Scholar

36. COM/2001/698/final.Google Scholar

37. The conciliation procedure may be invoked during the second reading if the Council refuses to accept amendments proposed by the EP. In this instance, the president of the Council consults with the president of the EP and convenes the conciliation committee within six weeks.Google Scholar

38. Statement released on 7 May 2002. See: European Industrial Relations Observatory on-line at http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/index.html.Google Scholar

39. See: http://www.womenlobby.org.Google Scholar

40. One of the factors that determines the outcome of a legislative proposal is the shared planning between the Commission and the member-state holding the Presidency of the Council. Interview in Rome, 22 November 2003.Google Scholar

41. Barnard, Catherine, ‘EC “Social” Policy’, in Craig, Paul and de Burca, Grainne (eds), The Evolution of EU Law , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999, pp. 479–517.Google Scholar

42. Hayes-Renshaw, Fiona, Lequesne, Christian and Lopez, Pedro Mayor, ‘The Permanent Representation of the Member-states to the European Community’, Journal of Common Market Studies , 28, 2, 1989, pp. 119–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. The second Amato government lasted from 25 April 2000 to 11 June 2001.Google Scholar

44. Interview, Rome, 22 October 2003 Google Scholar

45. Information gathered in interviews with members of the Italian Permanent Representation.Google Scholar

46. The member-state in the Presidency has an advantage in negotiations as it can draft the wording of the text. Interview, Rome, 22 October 2003.Google Scholar

47. Gallo, Flaminia and Hanny, Birgit, ‘Italy: Progress behind Complexity’, in Wessels, Wolfgang, Maurer, Andreas and Mittag, Jürgen (eds), Fifteen into One? The EU and its Member-states’ , Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2003, pp. 271–97.Google Scholar

48. Commissioner Diamantopoulou gave Italy a guiding role in equity policy. Indeed, according to the original Commission proposal, the long-awaited directive on equal opportunities for women outside the workplace was supposed to have been presented in 2002 under the Danish presidency of the Council, discussed under the Greek Presidency and voted upon while Italy was the Chair. However, because of disagreements between Commissioners and within DG Employment and Social Affairs, the proposal was presented only at the end of 2003.Google Scholar

49. There were officials who had previously served in the Department for European Affairs included among those interviewed in the Department of Equal Opportunities.Google Scholar