Suchergebnisse

All EU anti-discrimination directives contain basically identical provision on the burden of proof in anti-discrimination cases: Member States are to take the necessary measures, in accordance with their national judicial systems, to ensure that, when persons who consider themselves wronged because of the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them establish facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment. The wording of the two main anti-discrimination laws in Croatia, the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Gender Equality Act, on the burden of proof slightly differs, which may lead to inconsistent interpretation. The aim of this article is to explore the current Croatian gender discrimination case law concerning the application of the burden of proof rules and to investigate whether the required standard has been correctly applied in practice, as well as whether further legislative amendments are needed.

The non-discrimination principle is the core principle of the internal market of the European Union (EU). It is defined through primary and secondary EU law. The problem of its interpretation lies in the interpretation of direct effect in both vertical and horizontal situations. This paper discusses the key issue of the understanding of fundamental rights protection and the implementation of anti-discrimination legislation.

Reasons whi society suffers when a class of its citizens is arbitary denied equal opportunity are enumerated, It is asked, to what extent is the law capable of dealing with the kinds of discrimination at issue, & to what extent is the law a desirable tool with which to attempt the elimination of this evil. The appropriate sphere for law is seen to be action, not belief. Law can be effective as an instrument to control conduct. Legislation re discrimination is practical & enforceable as long as adequate enforcement machinery & procedures are provided. However, while the law can usually make men act in certain ways, it cannot assure that they will do so from stipulated motives. The law is seen as a desirable tool to combat prejudice because it tends to dissipate prejudice by inducing certain habits of conduct which themselves become educ'al experiences. Further, educ will never be 100% effective; there will always be a substantial number of individuals who cannot be persuaded to discard their prejudice. Anti-discrimination laws are therefore prerequisites to the elimination of the really hard-core discriminatory conduct. In the areas of the Sch's, housing, employment, & public accommodation, educ'al efforts unaccompanied by law are ineffective. Also, many people would discontinue their discriminatory business practices if they could find a sufficient excuse. Approaches to the enforcement of anti-discrimination statutes used in the US are discussed: criminal prosecution, private civil suit for damages, & admin'ive enforcement. The latter approach is seen as most advantageous. An attempt is made to indicate the exact scope of the prescriptions embodied in such laws. E. Weiman.

The article analyses discursive and practical activities by governmental and non-governmental actors in Russia and Ukraine aimed at the conceptualization and promotion of human equality on ethnic grounds as non-discrimination. The author aims at analyzing the reasons why anti-discrimination instruments are in low demand vis-à-vis concerns about ethnic xenophobia and conflicts. The author argues that the given societies have limited incentives and institutional capabilities for the creation and effective application of anti-discrimination mechanisms. The ruling elites have no reason to regard ethnic inequalities as a challenge; civil society activists and ordinary claimants might not treat non-discrimination as an efficient remedy; and there is no commonly accepted image of injustice in inter-group relations. Moreover, the marginality of anti-discrimination agenda in the post-Soviet space begs questions about the said mechanisms' universal applicability, since the latter require pre-conditions that are not guaranteed.

In practice and comments on EU internal market law, the Court and commentators often refer to the notion of 'market access' as if it is the keystone of the EU integration process and as if this would go beyond anti-discrimination rules. However, one cannot go beyond 'non-discrimination without entering the sphere of 'positive action. Yet, there is no legal, political or economic basis for positive action in the internal market context. A comparison with social law, where discrimination is a more developed concept, shows that the arguments for positive action are inappropriate to the economic context and that what are sometimes described as non-discriminatory rules constituting a restriction to free movement in fact usually constitute indirect discrimination. As for market access, economic theory tells us that the only rules that inhibit market access are those that have a discriminatory component. Thus anti-discrimination continues to be the essence of market-making and of market access and talk of 'going beyond' it is mere confusion. The goal and the logic of internal market law is substantive equality for all market actors – similarly to social law, from which it can learn much about the relevant concepts.

In July 2008, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in Coleman v Attridge Law (Case C-303/06) that the European prohibition of discrimination based on disabilities (Directive 2000/78) applies when the direct victim of discrimination is a person associated with the disabled person, such as a parent who is the primary carer for a disabled child. This decision has major implications for the scope and application of European anti-discrimination law, and in particular for the new anti-discrimination directives. Coleman raises questions relating to the complex relationship between paid work and caring. While being a case relating to disability discrimination, it has been heralded as a victory for carers. This article seeks to explain why and explore the extent to which this ruling reconstructs the concept of the worker as a subject whose caring relationships are recognized and valued. It begins by setting the judgment within the wider debates relating to care and work before considering the significance of the ruling for ECJ anti-discrimination jurisprudence. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the ruling and its aftermath in the UK, particularly for contemporary feminist analysis of the relationship between caring and paid work.