2007, the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All in the European Union ended a few months ago, stressing on the question of the current anti-discrimination law in the Union. This initiative of the Commission took place in a general movement of the European Union toward a better fight against discrimination which really began with the adoption of the two Directives of 2000. With its creation the Commission wanted to put an accent on the anti-discrimination policy of the Union and to make it more effective and inform people about it. The first step toward the creation was taken in 2005 when the first observations on the implementation of the Directives adopted in 2000 could be made. These two Directives, more precisely, their common legal basis, Article 13 EC created is, in my mind, the source of the real increase of anti-discrimination law in the European Union, it showed a real will of intensifying the fight against discrimination.
[...] But, it is not very well received in European countries which are more used to equality of chances and not of result. In a way these provisions are similar than Article 141(4) EC and show the will of the Community to give priority to national measures, the local policies preference increases the legitimacy of the Directives In conclusion, the definition of discrimination proposed in both the Directives is quite wide and innovative and can include a lot of situations; the differences between the two Directives will be made thanks to their material scope. [...]
[...] The treaty of 1957 creating the EEC was silent about racism. Moreover, the Council of ministers determined in 1968 that free movement was a right only for Members states nationals. In the middle of the 1970's, in the atmosphere of changing economic climate with the oil crisis, the increase of unemployment, the Community began its first social action program in 1974, which one of its aims was to control immigration and to integrate better already installed third country nationals. A debate rose about the competence or not of the Commission concerning third country nationals and migration policy. [...]
[...] This change can be explained by the conjuncture of the time. First of all, during the 1990's cross-border racism increased and jeopardized the functioning of the internal market. It was characterized by groups who profited the law of the different member states to evade prosecution. In this context, the Joint Action of 1996 asked member states to “ensure effective judicial cooperation” and to criminalize incitement to discrimination, racism . Moreover, racism was recognized as an obstacle to the free movement of persons because of, among other, the fear to suffer racism and the difference of protection in the member states. [...]
[...] ] This means that employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within the framework of the disability policy of the Member State concerned.” Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/78: order to tackle the under- representation of one of the major religious communities in the police service of Northern Ireland, differences in treatment regarding recruitment into that service, including its support staff, shall not constitute discrimination insofar as those differences in treatment are expressly authorised by national legislation.” Article 15(2) of Directive 2000/78: order to maintain a balance of opportunity in employment for teachers in Northern Ireland while furthering the reconciliation of historical divisions between the major religious communities there, the provisions on religion or belief in this Directive shall not apply to the recruitment of teachers in schools in Northern Ireland in so far as this is expressly authorised by national legislation.” Article of Directive 2000/78 Articles and 4 of Directives 2000/78 and 2000/43 Article 6 of Directive 2000/78: . [...]
[...] Other differences between the two Directives can be less justified and let guess a little weakness of the Framework Directive in comparison with the Racial Equality Directive. Some exceptions less justifiable and source of loss of efficiency Some of the differences made in the provisions of the Framework Directive are, in my mind, the reasons of the loss of efficiency of the Framework Directive in Comparison with the Racial Equality Directive. A difficultly explicable and too broad justification of discrimination on the ground of age: First of all, the Framework Directive introduced a new provision in its article “justification of treatment on grounds of which doesn't exist in the Racial Equality Directive. [...]
Lecture en ligneet sans publicité !
Contenu vérifiépar notre comité de lecture