The Implications of the Racial Equality Directive for Minority Protection within the European Union

M.J. Busstra

• Publisher: Eleven International Publishing
• Year: 2011
• eBook ISBN: 9789460944260
• Edition: 0
• Topic: Law
• Subtopic: Civil Rights in Law
• Index: Law

This book examines the substantive provisions of the Racial Equality Directive for Minority Protection (RED) and their implementation in four EU Member States (Belgium, Estonia, Hungary, and the Netherlands). The book follows the structure of the RED and consists of six substantive chapters, each of which corresponds with one aspect of the substantive section of the RED. Each chapter is divided into a theoretical part examining whether RED offers effective mechanisms for minority protection, as well as a practical part covering national case studies. The book concludes that the RED offers a range of possibilities to establish an inclusive and effective anti-discrimination regime on the national level and presents recommendations to make the RED more effective. The case study section of each chapter contains an overview of the way in which each of these four Member States has implemented the RED provisions. The study shows that the RED has a clear impact at the national level and has undeniably a converging effect, by producing, to a considerable extent, similar terms and concepts in national anti-discrimination law. It gives suggestions for improvement at the national level to further enhance minority protection, and it will be of interest to academics and professionals in the field of human rights, political science, and constitutional rights.

Table of contents

• Cover
• Acknowledgements
• Table of Contents
• List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: The Racial Equality Directive and Minority Protection: An Exploration
• 1.1. Introduction
• 1.2. Questions for analysis
• 1.3. Methodology
• 1.3.1. Theoretical framework
• 1.3.2. Case study: comparative research
• 1.4. Belgium, Estonia, Hungary and the Netherlands: a brief introduction
• 1.4.1. Belgium
• 1.4.2. Estonia
• 1.4.3. Hungary
• 1.4.4. The Netherlands
• Chapter 2: Personal Scope
• Part one: Theoretical framework
• 2.1. Introduction
• 2.2. Addressees of anti-discrimination legislation
• 2.2.1. ‘All persons’
• 2.2.2. ‘As regards both the public and private sectors, includingpublic bodies’
• 2.2.2.1. Applicability of the RED in the case of incorrect or untimely implementation
• 2.2.2.2. Differentiation between public and private actors
• 2.2.2.2.1. Fundamental rights and freedoms of private actors
• 2.2.2.2.2. Margin of appreciation for public actors
• 2.2.2.2.3. Further-reaching duties for public actors
• 2.3. Beneficiaries of anti-discrimination legislation
• 2.3.1. Conceptualisation of ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ origin
• 2.3.1.1. Race and ethnicity as social constructs
• 2.3.1.2. Proxies for racism recognised in international human rights law
• 2.3.1.3. Interpretation of ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ origin of Article 2(1) RED
• 2.3.1.4. Alternatives in the case of an inflexible approach
• 2.3.2. Interaction of grounds of discrimination
• 2.3.2.1. Direct v. indirect discrimination
• 2.3.2.2. Intersectional discrimination
• 2.3.2.3. Conflicts of grounds
• 2.3.3. The nationality exception of Article 3(2) RED
• 2.3.4. Types of victims
• 2.3.4.1. Legal persons as victims
• 2.3.4.2. Discrimination by association and by assumption
• Part two: Case study
• 2.4. Addressees of anti-discrimination legislation
• 2.4.1. ‘All persons’
• 2.4.1.1. Applicability to principally and non-principally envisaged actors
• 2.4.1.2. Alternatives available for direct liability of non-principally envisaged actors
• 2.4.2. ‘As regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies’
• 2.4.2.1. Applicability of the RED in the case of incorrect or untimely implementation
• 2.4.2.2. Differentiation between public and private actors
• 2.4.2.2.1. Fundamental rights and freedoms of private actors
• 2.4.2.2.2. Margin of appreciation for public actors
• 2.4.2.2.3. Differentiated application of duties
• 2.5. Beneficiaries of anti-discrimination legislation
• 2.5.1. Conceptualisation of ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ origin
• 2.5.2. Interaction of grounds of discrimination
• 2.5.2.1. Direct v. indirect discrimination
• 2.5.2.2. Intersectional discrimination
• 2.5.2.3. Conflicts of grounds
• 2.5.3. The nationality exception of Article 3(2)
• 2.5.4. Types of victims
• 2.5.4.1. Legal persons as victims
• 2.5.4.2. Discrimination by assumption or by association
• 2.6. Summary and conclusion
• Chapter 3: Material Scope
• Part one: Theoretical framework
• 3.1. Introduction
• 3.2. Factors that potentially qualify the material scope of the RED
• 3.2.1. Division of competences between Member States and the EU
• 3.2.2. Fundamental rights and freedoms
• 3.3. The material scope as regulated by the RED
• 3.3.1. Employment (Article 3(1) (a)-(d))
• 3.3.1.1. Access to employment
• 3.3.1.2. Vocational guidance and training
• 3.3.1.3. Work conditions
• 3.3.1.4. Membership of professional organisations
• 3.3.2. Social protection, social security and healthcare
• 3.3.3. Social advantages
• 3.3.4. Education
• 3.3.5. Goods and services
• 3.4. The exception of immigration, visa and asylum policies (Article 3(2) RED)
• Part two: Case study
• 3.5. Factors that could potentially qualify the material scope of the RED
• 3.5.1. Division of competences between Member States and the EU
• 3.5.2. Fundamental rights and freedoms
• 3.6. The material scope as regulated by the RED
• 3.6.1. Employment (Article 3(1) (a)-(d))
• 3.6.1.1. Provisions implementing Article 3(1) (a)-(d)
• 3.6.1.2. Access to employment
• 3.6.1.3. Vocational guidance and training
• 3.6.1.4. Work conditions
• 3.6.1.5. Membership of professional organisations
• 3.6.2. Social protection, social security and healthcare
• 3.6.3. Social advantages
• 3.6.4. Education
• 3.6.5. Goods and services
• 3.7. The exception of immigration, visa and asylum (IVA ) policies
• 3.8. Additional domains covered by national anti-discrimination law
• 3.9. Summary and conclusion
• Chapter 4: Direct discrimination
• Part one: Theoretical framework
• 4.1. Introduction
• 4.2. Proper delineation of direct discrimination v. indirect discrimination
• 4.2.1. Delineation of direct v. indirect discrimination from a theoretical perspective
• 4.2.2. Delineation of direct v. indirect discrimination in the jurisprudence of the ECJ on equal treatment between men and women
• 4.2.3. Delineation of direct v. indirect discrimination as regards racial and ethnic origin
• 4.3. Definition of direct discrimination in the RED
• 4.3.1. ‘One person’
• 4.3.2. ‘Is treated less favourably’
• 4.3.3. ‘On grounds of racial or ethnic origin’ (causal aspect of direct discrimination)
• 4.3.4. ‘Than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation’ (comparative aspect of direct discrimination)
• 4.4. Justification possibilities for prima facie cases of direct discrimination
• 4.4.1. Open v. closed system of justification
• 4.4.2. Genuine and determining occupational requirement (GDOR)
• 4.4.2.1. Introduction
• 4.4.2.2. Genuine and determining
• 4.4.2.3. Legitimate aim
• 4.4.2.4. Suitability
• 4.4.2.5. Necessity
• 4.5. Direct discrimination and positive duties
• Part two: Case study
• 4.6. Definition of direct discrimination
• 4.6.1. Situation prior to the RED and the changes brought about by implementation
• 4.6.2. ‘One person’
• 4.6.3. ‘Is treated less favourably’
• 4.6.4. ‘On grounds of racial or ethnic origin’ (causal aspect of direct discrimination)
• 4.6.4.1. Delineation of direct v. indirect discrimination
• 4.6.4.2. Establishment of the causal link
• 4.6.4.3. Intent required?
• 4.6.4.4. Racial or ethnic origin as one of the reasons
• 4.6.5. ‘Than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation’
• 4.6.5.1. Function of the comparative element
• 4.6.5.2. Hypothetical comparator
• 4.7. Justification possibilities for a prima facie case of direct discrimination
• 4.7.1. Closed v. open system of justification
• 4.7.2. Genuine and determining occupational requirement (GDOR)
• 4.8. Direct discrimination and positive duties
• 4.9. Summary and conclusion
• Chapter 5: Indirect discrimination
• Part one: Theoretical framework
• 5.1. Introduction
• 5.2. Definition of indirect discrimination in the RED
• 5.2.1. ‘An apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice’
• 5.2.1.1. Formal differences in treatment and material differences in treatment
• 5.2.1.2. Broad interpretation of ‘provision, criterion or practice’
• 5.2.1.3. No single identifiable cause required
• 5.2.1.4. The ‘single source’ requirement
• 5.2.2. ‘Would put at a particular disadvantage persons of a racial or ethnic origin’
• 5.2.2.1. Causal link required
• 5.2.2.2. Establishing the particular disadvantage
• 5.2.2.2.1. Means of proof
• 5.2.2.2.2. The meaning of ‘disadvantage’
• 5.2.2.2.3. The meaning of ‘particular’
• 5.2.2.2.4. The ‘persons’ controversy
• 5.2.3. Compared to other persons (comparative aspect of indirect discrimination)
• 5.2.3.1. Establishing the pool of comparators
• 5.2.3.2. Making the appropriate comparison within the pool of comparators
• 5.2.4. ‘Unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of that aim are appropriate and necessary’ (justification aspect of indirect discrimination)
• 5.2.4.1. Justification or causation?
• 5.2.4.2. ‘Objectively justified by a legitimate aim’
• 5.2.4.3. Appropriateness
• 5.2.4.4. Necessity
• 5.3. Indirect discrimination and positive duties
• Part two: Case study
• 5.4. Definition of indirect discrimination
• 5.4.1. Situation prior to the RED and the changes brought about by implementation
• 5.4.2. ‘An apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice’
• 5.4.2.1. Formal differences in treatment and material differences in treatment
• 5.4.2.2. Broad interpretation of ‘provision, criterion or practice’
• 5.4.2.3. Single source doctrine
• 5.4.3. Would put at a particular disadvantage persons of a racial or ethnic origin
• 5.4.3.1. Formulation of the ‘particular disadvantage’ element
• 5.4.3.2. Causal link required?
• 5.4.3.3. Establishing the particular disadvantage
• 5.4.3.3.1. Means of proof
• 5.4.3.3.2. Establishment of the particular disadvantage
• 5.4.3.3.3. The ‘would put’ aspect of indirect discrimination
• 5.4.4. Compared to other persons (comparative aspect of indirect discrimination)
• 5.4.4.1. Reference to the comparison and use of comparability
• 5.4.4.2. Delineation of the pool of comparators and application of the comparison
• 5.4.5. ‘Unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of that aim are appropriate and necessary’ (justification aspect of indirect discrimination)
• 5.4.5.1. Formulation of the objective justification test
• 5.4.5.2. ‘Objectively justified by a legitimate aim’
• 5.4.5.3. Appropriateness
• 5.4.5.4. Necessity
• 5.4.5.5. Need for consistency and transparency: a bad example drawn from the Belgian framework
• 5.4.5.6. The Hungarian approach
• 5.5. Indirect discrimination and positive duties
• 5.6. Summary and conclusion
• Chapter 6: Harassment and the Instruction to Discriminate
• Part one: Theoretical framework
• 6.1. Introduction
• 6.2. Harassment
• 6.2.1. Margin of discretion for Member States
• 6.2.2. Definition of racial harassment
• 6.2.2.1. ‘An unwanted conduct’
• 6.2.2.2. ‘Related to racial or ethnic origin’
• 6.2.2.3. ‘With the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’
• 6.2.2.3.1. ‘Of violating the dignity of a person’
• 6.2.2.3.2. ‘And of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’
• 6.2.2.3.3. Need for transparency and consistency
• 6.2.3. The duty of care implied by Article 2(3) RED
• 6.3. Instruction to discriminate
• Part two: Case study
• 6.4. Harassment
• 6.4.1. Situation prior to the RED and the changes brought about by implementation
• 6.4.2. The definition of harassment
• 6.4.2.1. ‘An unwanted conduct’
• 6.4.2.2. ‘Related to racial or ethnic origin’
• 6.4.2.3. ‘With the purpose or effect’
• 6.4.2.4. ‘Of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’
• 6.4.3. The duty of care implied by Article 2(3)
• 6.5. Instruction to discriminate
• 6.6. Summary and conclusion
• Chapter 7: Positive Action
• Part one: Theoretical framework
• 7.1. Introduction
• 7.2. General overview of positive action: ends and means
• 7.2.1. Nature and aim of positive action
• 7.2.2. Types of positive action
• 7.2.2.1. First category: activities aimed at identifying and eradicating discriminatory practices
• 7.2.2.2. Second category: facially neutral policies that tend to favour persons belonging to disadvantaged groups, and that are aimed at increasing their participation
• 7.2.2.3. Third category: outreach programmes specifically aimed at particular groups, encouraging persons belonging to such groups to pursue certain socio-economic activities, or offering specific support, such as training
• 7.2.2.4. Fourth category: preferential treatment
• 7.2.2.5. Fifth category: redefinition of merit
• 7.2.3. Potential unwanted effects of positive action
• 7.2.4. Duties of positive action
• 7.3. Limits to positive action: Article 5 RED and the jurisprudence of the ECJ
• 7.3.1. Formulation of Article 5 RED as compared with other positive action provisions
• 7.3.2. Jurisprudence of the ECJ in gender equality law and its potential relevance for Article 5 RED
• 7.3.2.1. Overview of the positive action cases
• 7.3.2.2. Positive action as an exception to the principle of equal treatment
• 7.3.2.3. Central importance of the principle of proportionality
• 7.3.2.4. Legitimacy of the aim pursued by positive action
• 7.3.2.5. Appropriateness
• 7.3.2.6. Necessity (subsidiarity and proportionality stricto sensu)
• Part two: Case study
• 7.4. Introduction
• 7.5. Implementation of Arti cle 5 RED in the national frameworks
• 7.6. Limits to positive action in the national frameworks
• 7.6.1. Positive action as an exception to the principle of equal treatment
• 7.6.2. Type of actor that is allowed to enact measures of positive action
• 7.6.3. Central importance of the principle of proportionality
• 7.6.3.1. Legitimacy of the aim pursued by positive action
• 7.6.3.2. Appropriateness
• 7.6.3.3. Necessity (subsidiarity and proportionality stricto sensu)
• 7.6.3.4. The Dutch ETC and potentially indirectly discriminatory measures of positive action
• 7.7. Measures of positive action taken at the national level on behalf of racial or ethnic minorities
• 7.7.1. Duties of positive action
• 7.7.2. National positive action measures
• 7.8. Summary and conclusion
• Chapter 8: Conclusion
• 8.1. Theoretical analysis: the potential of the RED for minority protection
• 8.2. Case study sections: implementation at the national level and implications for minority protection
• Jurisprudence and Quasi-Jurisprudence
• Selected General Bibliography