Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Last updated
Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
European stars.svg
Submitted 6 December 1982
Decided 10 April 1984
Full case name Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
Case number C-14/83
ECLI ECLI:EU:C:1984:153
Court composition
Judge-Rapporteur
Lord Mackenzie Stuart
Advocate General
France Simone Rozès
Instruments cited
Equal Treatment Directive
(Directive 76/207/EEC)
Keywords
Direct effect, Equal treatment


Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (1984) Case 14/83 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.

Contents

Facts

Sabine Von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann were German social workers who applied to work in men's prisons run by the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Both were rejected on the basis they were women.

Von Colson and Kamann appealed the decision at the Arbeitsgericht (Labour Tribunal). Under European Communities law, the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC) required member states to give effect to principle of equal treatment and obliged them to provide a legal remedy. The claimants argued that they had a directly effective right to demand that the court order the employer to appoint her. Instead of this or compensation, they were awarded only "reliance losses" as a remedy, equivalent to the travel costs incurred by going to the interview (7.20 DM).

Judgment

Lack of precision in the directive prevented it from having direct effect, but the Court directed that the national legislation be interpreted in light of the directive. Ultimately, the claimants were not entitled to a remedy that guaranteed their appointment to the post from which they had been discriminated against, but the member state would be liable to provide a remedy. Compensation for the discrimination suffered could be carried out in several ways, including via the payment of damages. The Court also required the remedy to be sufficient to ensure the effectiveness of Community (now EU) law.

23. Although... full implementation of the directive does not require any specific form of sanction for unlawful discrimination, it does entail that that sanction be such as to guarantee real and effective judicial protection.

26. ... national courts are required to interpret their national law in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive in order to achieve the result referred to in the third paragraph of Article 189.

28. ... if a Member State chooses to penalize breaches of that prohibition by the award of compensation, then in order to ensure that it is effective and that it has a deterrent effect, that compensation must in any event be adequate in relation to the damage sustained and must therefore amount to more than purely nominal compensation such as, for example, the reimbursement only of the expenses incurred in connection with the application. It is for the national court to interpret and apply the legislation adopted for the implementation of the directive in conformity with the requirements of Community law, in so far as it is given discretion to do so under national law.

See also


Related Research Articles

European Union law System of rules operating within the member states of the European Union

European Union law is a system of rules operating within the member states of the European Union. Since the founding of the Coal and Steel Community after World War II, the EU has developed the aim to "promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples". The EU has political institutions, social and economic policies, which transcend nation states for the purpose of cooperation and human development. According to its Court of Justice the EU represents "a new legal order of international law".

In European Union law, direct effect is the principle that Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which the courts of member states of the European Union are bound to recognise and enforce.

Indirect effect is a principle of the European Union (EU) law, whereby national courts of the member states of the EU are required to interpret national law in line with provisions of EU law. The principle of indirect effect contrasts with the principle of direct effect, which, under certain conditions, allows individuals to invoke the EU law itself before national courts.

<i>R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport</i> UK-Spanish legal case

R v Secretary of State for Transport was a judicial review case taken against the United Kingdom government by a company of Spanish fishermen who claimed that the United Kingdom had breached European Union law by requiring ships to have a majority of British owners if they were to be registered in the UK. The case produced a number of significant judgments on British constitutional law, and was the first time that courts held that they had power to restrain the application of an Act of Parliament pending trial and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU law.

Equal pay for equal work is the concept of labour rights that individuals in the same workplace be given equal pay. It is most commonly used in the context of sexual discrimination, in relation to the gender pay gap. Equal pay relates to the full range of payments and benefits, including basic pay, non-salary payments, bonuses and allowances. Some countries have moved faster than others in addressing equal pay.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains guaranteed equality rights. As part of the Constitution of Canada, the section prohibits certain forms of discrimination perpetrated by the governments of Canada with the exception of ameliorative programs.

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India Rights provided to Indian citizens

The Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy and fundamental rights' are sections of the Constitution of India that prescribe the fundamental obligations of the states to its citizens and the duties and the rights of the citizens to the State. These sections comprise a constitutional bill of rights for government policy-making and the behaviour and conduct of citizens. These sections are considered vital elements of the constitution, which was developed between 1947 and 1949 by the Constituent Assembly of India.

Equal Pay Act 1970 United Kingdom legislation

The Equal Pay Act 1970 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that prohibited any less favourable treatment between men and women in terms of pay and conditions of employment. The Act was proposed by the then Labour government, and was based on the Equal Pay Act of 1963 of the United States. It has now been mostly superseded by Part 5, chapter 3, of the Equality Act 2010.

United Kingdom employment equality law is a body of law which legislates against prejudice-based actions in the workplace. As an integral part of UK labour law it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because they have one of the "protected characteristics", which are, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, pregnancy and maternity, and sexual orientation. The primary legislation is the Equality Act 2010, which outlaws discrimination in access to education, public services, private goods and services, transport or premises in addition to employment. This follows three major European Union Directives, and is supplement by other Acts like the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Furthermore, discrimination on the grounds of work status, as a part-time worker, fixed term employee, agency worker or union membership is banned as a result of a combination of statutory instruments and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, again following European law. Disputes are typically resolved in the workplace in consultation with an employer or trade union, or with advice from a solicitor, ACAS or the Citizens Advice Bureau a claim may be brought in an employment tribunal. The Equality Act 2006 established the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a body designed to strengthen enforcement of equality laws.

Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA (1990) C-106/89 was a decision of the European Court of Justice concerning the indirect effect of European Community law, now European Union law. It established that the courts of European Union member states have a duty to interpret national legislation in the light of unimplemented European Union directives.

European labour law regulates basic transnational standards of employment and partnership at work in the European Union and countries adhering to the European Convention on Human Rights. In setting regulatory floors to competition to for job-creating investment within the Union, and in promoting a degree of employee consultation in the workplace, European labour law is viewed as a pillar of the "European social model". Despite wide variation in employment protection and related welfare provision between member states, a contrast is typically drawn with conditions in the United States.

R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment [2000] UKHL 12 and (1999) C-167/97 is a landmark case in UK labour law and European labour law on the qualifying period of work before an employee accrues unfair dismissal rights. It was held by the House of Lords and the European Court of Justice that a two-year qualifying period had a disparate impact on women given that significantly fewer women worked long enough to be protected by the unfair dismissal law, but that the government could, at that point in the 1990s, succeed in an objective justification of increasing recruitment by employers.

Mangold v Helm (2005) C-144/04 was a case before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) about age discrimination in employment.

Victims' rights are legal rights afforded to victims of crime. These may include the right to restitution, the right to a victims' advocate, the right not to be excluded from criminal justice proceedings, and the right to speak at criminal justice proceedings.

Kušionová v SMART Capital a.s. (2014) Case C-34/13 is an EU law and consumer protection case, concerning the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive. It emphasises the foundations of consumer protection on inequality of bargaining power and imbalances in information.

<i>Marshall v Southampton Health Authority</i>

Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (1986) Case 152/84 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.

<i>Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl</i>

Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl (1994) C-91/92 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.

Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en voor Racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV (2008) C-54/07 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union.

<i>Ker-Optika bt v ÀNTSZ Dél- dunántúli Regionális Intézete</i> EU law case concerning a conflict of law between Hungarian national legislation and European Union law

Ker-Optika bt v ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete [2010] ECR, Case C-108/09 is an EU law case concerning a conflict of law between Hungarian national legislation and European Union law. The Hungarian legislation regarding the online sale of contact lenses was considered with regards to whether it was necessary for the protection of public health, and it was concluded that this could have been done by less restrictive measures. Despite the internal measure in this case being categorised as a selling arrangement, which would generally be determined by the discrimination test established in Keck, the Court went on to use a market access test, as per Italian Trailers. Thus, this case is crucial in the recent development of the tests for determining measures equaling equivalent effect.

References