Sentences with phrase «equal treatment directive»

One particularly notable, if complex, decision last year was that of Mr Justice Burton in judicial review proceedings in R (on the application of the Equal Opportunities Commission) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] IRLR 327, [2007] All ER (D) 183 (Mar) that amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in 2005 to comply with the amended Equal Treatment Directive 76 / 207 / EC did not transpose those changes properly in certain detailed ways.

That defence has hitherto failed when based on trade union action to protect wages but one interesting question in an «equal ops» case (shorn of the complicated arguments on the Posted Workers Directive) would be whether such a justification defence would be more likely to succeed if itself based on another area of EC law, ie the Equal Treatment Directive.

In 2007, the High Court found that SDA 1975 failed to adequately implement the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207 EC (the Directive).

He has recently been involved in matters raising a wide variety of EU law issues, including the implementation of the common agricultural policy; the compatibility with EU law of a residency requirement for entitlement to tuition fee support, a minimum price for alcohol, and plain - packaging for tobacco products; the designation of special areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive; and the compatibility of religious further education colleges with the Equal Treatment Directive.

The Equal Treatment Directive covers direct discrimination or harassment against people associated with a disabled person as well as the disabled themselves, the advocate general says in a new opinion.

In addition, it does not refer, not even en passant, to the Equal Treatment Directive 2000/78, which incorporated discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation into EU secondary law.

However, M was entitled to equal treatment under Art 2 (1) of the EC Equal Treatment Directive 76 / 207 / EEC, since IVF treatment directly affects women.

For example, in Marshall [1986], EU: C: 1986:84 Case 152/84 a claimant successfully invoked the provisions of the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207 against a public - sector hospital.

Together with the European Guide Dog Federation, ADEu is lobbying in Brussels to get the Equal Treatment Directive on the agenda of the European Commission.

ADEu and the European Guide Dog Federation (EGDF) will be lobbying together in Brussels to get the Equal Treatment Directive onto the agenda of the European Commission, and to gain public access for all assistance dogs and those in training.

Not exact matches

The directive also mandates that the nations create «bodies for the promotion of equal treatment» to bring about this «equality.»

European Council Directive 2000 / 78 / EC, which established «a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation», sets out in Article 4.2 that organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief, such as «faith» schools, can treat persons differently in recruitment and employment on the grounds of religion or belief where there is «a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement».

The Equal Treatment in Employment Directive required the Government to ensure that all employers, except for the armed forces, would come under the DDA by 2004.

The Court starts by emphasizing that EU citizens can only claim equal treatment with respect to social assistance benefits on the basis of article 24 (1) of Directive 2004/38 («Citizenship Directive») if they meet the residence conditions of that Directive (para. 38).

This would call into question the effectiveness of the Family Reunification Directive and thwart the specific protection for unaccompanied minor refugees, as well as the principle of equal treatment and legal certainty.

That directive provides equal treatment between third country nationals which are long term residents in a Member State and Union citizens with regard to amongst other things social security and social protection.

The directive also provides for an express derogation for the Member States from their obligations under article 11 (the equal treatment principle).

78 However, the absence of such an autonomous and uniform definition under European Union law of the concepts of social security, social assistance and social protection and the reference to national law in Article 11 (1)(d) of Directive 2003/109 concerning those concepts do not mean that the Member States may undermine the effectiveness of Directive 2003/109 when applying the principle of equal treatment provided for in that provision.

Answering the main question, the Court starts with recalling its finding in Dano that a Union citizen can only claim equal treatment with regard to social assistance on the basis of Article 24 (2) of the Citizenship Directive if his residence complies with the stated conditions.

The question was whether EU law (Directives 2000/43 on equal treatment on the basis of ethnicity, 2000/78 on equal treatment in employment and 2006/54 on equal treatment on grounds of sex in matters of employment) required the employer to disclose information on the grounds of refusal if a candidate demonstrates she meets the requirements listed in the job ad.

With regard to the question of compatibility of the imposition of a residence condition with Articles 29 and 33 of the Directive, after having found that these Articles in principle require an equal treatment of all beneficiaries of international protection as regards the freedom of movement (Article 33) and a treatment that is equal to nationals of the relevant Member State in the matter of welfare benefits (Article 29), the Court concludes that a residence condition can still be imposed on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status, if they are not in an objectively comparable situation with beneficiaries of other international protection status or nationals of the Member States as regards the objective pursued by the national law that seems to infringe on Articles 29 and 33 (point 54 of the judgment).

He does so by analyzing the principle of equal treatment not only in the context of the Directive, but also in the context of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, the ECHR and the Geneva Convention, and through the examination of these legal instrument concluding that differential treatment according to immigration status is only justifiable if the reason for this differential treatment passes a strict proportionality test.

... when they implement the possibility provided for in Article 51 of Directive 2004/18 [whereby the contracting authority may invite economic operators to supplement or clarify the certificates and documents submitted to it], the Member States must ensure that they do not jeopardise the attainment of the objectives pursued by that directive or undermine the effectiveness of its provisions and other relevant provisions and principles of EU law, particularly the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, transparency and proportioDirective 2004/18 [whereby the contracting authority may invite economic operators to supplement or clarify the certificates and documents submitted to it], the Member States must ensure that they do not jeopardise the attainment of the objectives pursued by that directive or undermine the effectiveness of its provisions and other relevant provisions and principles of EU law, particularly the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, transparency and proportiodirective or undermine the effectiveness of its provisions and other relevant provisions and principles of EU law, particularly the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality...

... the general principles underlying Directive 2004/17, in particular the principle of equal treatment and the consequent obligation of transparency enshrined in Article 10 of that directive do not preclude such ruleDirective 2004/17, in particular the principle of equal treatment and the consequent obligation of transparency enshrined in Article 10 of that directive do not preclude such ruledirective do not preclude such rules either.

It held that the requirement in the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate as a condition for claiming a state requirement pension in one's acquired gender was compatible with Council Directive 79 / 7 / EEC on equal treatment in matters of social security.

Mr Coles brought a claim alleging that he had not received equal treatment under the Temporary Agency Worker Directive (the «Directive») as the MOD had denied him the opportunity of applying for the role and permanent employees had been given preference for the vacancy.

«The Framework Directive confers on all persons, including police offi cers, a directly eff ective right to be treated in accordance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to employment and working conditions, including dismissals.»

Secondly, the employment anti-discrimination Directives (Directive 2000 / 78 / EC; Directive 2000 / 43 / EC on the equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and Directive 2006 / 54 / EC on the equal treatment of men and women in employment) do not refer to obesity either, and the fact that this case concerns an area falling within the Union's competence (i.e. employment policy) «is an insufficient foundation for concluding that a Member State -LRB-...) is «implementing» EU law.»

Having decided to extend the Directive to the insurance industry and to affirm the principle of unisex pricing, it would not be consistent with that objective to permit an indefinite derogation from equal treatment.

The Court considered the following issues: (1) Whether the Framework Directive (Directive 2000 / 78 / EC Establishing a Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation) applies to volunteers?

In its judgment of 26 January 2011, the Court of Appeal held that neither the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 («DDA 1995») nor Directive 2000/78 / EEC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation («the Framework Directive») afford protection from discrimination on grounds of disability to unpaid volunteers.

The Supreme Court has recently upheld earlier rulings of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal that voluntary work does not fall within the concept of an «occupation» in Article 3 (1)(a) of the EU Framework Directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation.

The right to equal treatment for agency workers under the Directive could only extend to basic working conditions, such as hours and pay.

He then brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal, arguing that the Ministry of Defence had breached its obligations to provide equal treatment to agency workers under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 and the Temporary Agency Worker Directive.

The Appellant claimed that the position under domestic law was discriminatory and in breach of EU law (Directive 79/7 on Equal Treatment in Social Security).

39 Under Article 2 of the Directive, the «principle of equal treatment» is to mean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 of that dDirective, the «principle of equal treatment» is to mean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 of that directivedirective.

The Directive requires equal treatment in all aspects of employment.

However, in accordance with Article 1 thereof, the purpose of Directive 2000/78 is to combat, as regards employment and occupation, certain types of discrimination, including discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment.

The EC Directives that are currently most relevant to carers are the Equal Treatment (Race) Directive 2000/43 / EC, implemented in the UK through the Race Relations Act 1976; the Equal Treatment (Sex) Directive 2006 / 54 / EC implemented in the UK through SDA 1975 and the Framework Directive, mentioned above, covering the other core strands.

DDA 1995 is the means through which the disability - related aspects of the EC Equal Treatment Framework Directive 2000 / 78 / EC (Framework Directive), are implemented in the UK.

The PIF Directive may nevertheless raise other legal issues, including the impact on the principle of equal treatment (e.g. to the extent some criminal offenses are subject to a different regime as to statute of limitation: it is not prohibited, but there must be grounds to distinguish among various offenses).

(20) In accordance with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, all Union citizens and their family members residing in a Member State on the basis of this Directive should enjoy, in that Member State, equal treatment with nationals in areas covered by the Treaty, subject to such specific provisions as are expressly provided for in the Treaty and secondary law.

Thus, as the Commission has rightly pointed out, the very wording of Article 24 (2) of that directive shows that it is only during the first three months of residence that, by way of derogation from the principle of equal treatment set out in Article 24 (1), the host Member State is not to be under an obligation to confer entitlement to social assistance on Union citizens who do not or no longer have worker status.

56 In a similar vein, Article 24 (2) of Directive 2004/38 allows a derogation from the principle of equal treatment enjoyed by Union citizens other than workers, self - employed persons, persons who retain such status and members of their families who reside within the territory of the host Member State, by permitting that State not to confer entitlement to social assistance, in particular for the first three months of residence (see Joined Cases C ‑ 22 / 08 and C ‑ 23 / 08 Vatsouras and Koupatantze [2009] ECR I ‑ 4585, paragraphs 34 and 35).

Under Article 4 (1) of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive, direct discrimination can be justified where there is a «genuine and determining occupational requirement» which is legitimate and proportionate.

Its conclusions turned on its interpretation of the equal treatment principle in Council Directive 79 / 7 / EEC on equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, and on the CJEU's seminal judgment in Case C - 423 / 04 Richards v Secretary of State of Work and Pensions.

The TFEU principles applicable to the free movement of goods (equal treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality) are embodied in our national Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which were brought into force to implement the European Directive of 2014/24 on public sector contracts.

The employment tribunal found that the exemption under EqA 2010 breached the EU Equal Treatment Framework Directive which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in employment and occupation.

The Disability Rights Commission (DRC), which backed Sharon Coleman, says her case concerns the interpretation of the EU's Equal Treatment Framework Directive and its impact on UK disability discrimination legislation.