ECJ 21 July 2011, case C-104/10 (Patrick Kelly - v - National University of Ireland), Gender discrimination

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 97/80/EC [...] must be interpreted as meaning that it does not entitle an applicant for vocational training, who believes that his application was not accepted because of an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, to information held by the course provider on the qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question, in order that he may establish "facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination" in accordance with that provision.

Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that if the defendant refuses to disclose, in the context of establishing such facts, the objective pursued by the Directive could be compromised, depriving Article 4(1) thereof, in particular, of its effectiveness. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

ECJ 21 July 2011, case C-104/10 (Patrick Kelly - v - National University of Ireland), Gender discrimination

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 97/80/EC [...] must be interpreted as meaning that it does not entitle an applicant for vocational training, who believes that his application was not accepted because of an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, to information held by the course provider on the qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question, in order that he may establish "facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination" in accordance with that provision.

Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that if the defendant refuses to disclose, in the context of establishing such facts, the objective pursued by the Directive could be compromised, depriving Article 4(1) thereof, in particular, of its effectiveness. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

2011/64: Irish system of setting sectoral terms of employment is unconstitutional (IR)

The plaintiffs in this case sought a declaration that certain provisions of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 and 1990 were invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution, and a declaration that an Employment Regulation Order (‘ERO’) made by the Labour Court in May 2008 was an unlawful and disproportionate interference with the plaintiffs’ property rights. The High Court agreed with the plaintiffs and found that the system of setting sectoral wage rates and conditions of employment was unconstitutional.

2011/64: Irish system of setting sectoral terms of employment is unconstitutional (IR)

The plaintiffs in this case sought a declaration that certain provisions of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 and 1990 were invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution, and a declaration that an Employment Regulation Order (‘ERO’) made by the Labour Court in May 2008 was an unlawful and disproportionate interference with the plaintiffs’ property rights. The High Court agreed with the plaintiffs and found that the system of setting sectoral wage rates and conditions of employment was unconstitutional.

2014/23 Different termination rules for blue and white collar workers finally ended (BE)

The Belgian Constitutional Court has judged that the differences in treatment between blue and white collar workers regarding notice periods and sick pay are discriminatory. It gave the legislator a deadline of 8 July 2013 to harmonise the statutes relating to blue and white collar workers in relation to notice periods and sick pay. This eventually led to the Act of 26 December 2013 which provides a thorough modernisation of Belgian termination law and has pensioned off the well-known ‘Claeys formula’.

2014/23 Different termination rules for blue and white collar workers finally ended (BE)

The Belgian Constitutional Court has judged that the differences in treatment between blue and white collar workers regarding notice periods and sick pay are discriminatory. It gave the legislator a deadline of 8 July 2013 to harmonise the statutes relating to blue and white collar workers in relation to notice periods and sick pay. This eventually led to the Act of 26 December 2013 which provides a thorough modernisation of Belgian termination law and has pensioned off the well-known ‘Claeys formula’.

ECJ 7 July 2011, case C-310/10 (Ministerul Justitiei si Libertatilor Cetatenesti – v – Stefan Agafitei and others), Other forms of discrimination

The plaintiffs were 31 Romanian judges. They felt discriminated against because prosecutors within two branches of the Justice Department (the branch that prosecutes corruption and the branch that prosecutes terrorism) were given a salary increase, as a result of which they earn more than judges.

The reference for a primary ruling is inadmissible.

ECJ 7 July 2011, case C-310/10 (Ministerul Justitiei si Libertatilor Cetatenesti – v – Stefan Agafitei and others), Other forms of discrimination

The plaintiffs were 31 Romanian judges. They felt discriminated against because prosecutors within two branches of the Justice Department (the branch that prosecutes corruption and the branch that prosecutes terrorism) were given a salary increase, as a result of which they earn more than judges.

The reference for a primary ruling is inadmissible.

2011/53: Does disclosing employee’s sexual orientation constitute discrimination or harassment? (UK)

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a homosexual employee who had chosen to reveal his sexual orientation to colleagues at a previous workplace could not claim that he was unlawfully discriminated against or harassed simply because he was not able to choose how and when he could reveal his sexual orientation to other colleagues. However, ‘outing’ someone without consent could amount to discrimination and harassment in other circumstances.

2011/53: Does disclosing employee’s sexual orientation constitute discrimination or harassment? (UK)

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a homosexual employee who had chosen to reveal his sexual orientation to colleagues at a previous workplace could not claim that he was unlawfully discriminated against or harassed simply because he was not able to choose how and when he could reveal his sexual orientation to other colleagues. However, ‘outing’ someone without consent could amount to discrimination and harassment in other circumstances.