Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Basic legal presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Basic legal presentation

123

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
123
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Basic Legal Techniques for Jurists (35205) Group: AR Student: Eetu-Pekka Parkkinen Teacher: Jose Garcia Añon PRESENTATION
  • 2. THE JUDGMENT of the European Court of Justice 28.3.2000: CASE C-158/97 AKA Application by BADECK
  • 3. Backround: <ul><li>First minister and Attorney General of Hesse George Badeck and 46 members of the Landtag of Hesse wanted to arrange a legal match between:
  • 4. HGIG
  • 5. vs.
  • 6. The constitution of Land of Hesse with EU Directive </li></ul>
  • 7. <ul><li>HGIG means ” the Law of the Land of Hesse on equal rights for women and men and the removal of discrimination against women in the public administration ”
  • 8. So technically a law that promotes equal rights between genders in Hesse </li></ul>What is HGIG??
  • 9. Main points of HGIG <ul><li>Paragraph 1: law's aim is “ equal access of women and men to posts in the public service, by the adoption of advancement plans relating to conditions of access and promotion for women and their working conditions”
  • 10. Par. 3: “Departments shall be obliged, by means of women's advancement plans and other advancement measures, to work towards equality of women and men in the public service and the elimination of under-representation of women and to eliminate discrimination on grounds of sex and family status. ” </li></ul>
  • 11. Main points of HGIG <ul><li>Par. 5: In those sector posts, where women are under-represented, more than half of the vacant posts should be given to women -> if they have the same qualifications as for the same post applying men
  • 12. Par. 9: Interviews for a sectors, where women are under-represented, as many women as men or all the women shall be called to interview </li></ul>
  • 13. <ul><li>Badeck with his companions argued that HGIG is contrary to: </li><ul><li>1. to the Hesse Law ”of Choosing the Best” candidate (HGIG gives preference more to candidate's sex than merits)
  • 14. 2. to the Principle of Equal Treatment
  • 15. 3. to the European Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions </li></ul></ul>
  • 16. <ul><li>It is actually defined in Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 :
  • 17. Article 2.1: , the principle of equal treatment shall
  • 18. mean that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever
  • 19. on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by
  • 20. reference in particular to marital or family status. </li></ul>What is Principle of Equal Treatment?
  • 21. <ul><li>this question arised by Badeck about the contradiction of national law and EU Directive resulted that the question was asked from
  • 22. the European Court of Justice (ECJ) </li></ul>
  • 23. <ul><li>ECJ observed in this case that it relates to the compatibility of Directive 76/207/EEC and its articles 2.1 and 2.4 with the HGIG or legislature of the national law about the equal treatment of sexes
  • 24. Directive 76/207/EEC </li></ul>Article 2.1. For the purposes of the following provisions, the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no discrimination whatsover on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status. Article 2.4. This Directive shall be without prejudice to measures to promote equal opportunity for men and women, in particular by removing existing inequalities which affect women's opportunities in the areas referred to in Article 1 (1). Article 1.1. The purpose of this Directive is to put into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, including promotion, and to vocational training and as regards working conditions and, on the conditions referred to in paragraph 2, social security. This principle is herinafter referred to as &quot;the principle of equal treatment.&quot;
  • 25. But before the Judgment, let us think the perspectives of both sides, mainly women's and men's. What problems could the judgment rise???
  • 26. If ECJ concluded that HGIG was against the principle of equal treatment: <ul><li>National policies in reducing discrimination against women would become more difficult to execute -> job markets show what is the situation on sexual discrimination
  • 27. The Principle of Equal Treatment would in legal logic be compatible with the ECJs conclusion -> no discrimination between sexes at all when applying a job
  • 28. Men would not have to feel that they were not selected because of their sex
  • 29. Member States could use this case law to justify the abolition of quotas for women in job markets -> division of jobs according to sex would increase </li></ul>
  • 30. If ECJ concluded that HGIG was compatible with the principle of equal treatment: <ul><li>It would be in balance with the Treaty of Amsterdam Article 141.4 (TFEU Art. 157.4) : “... the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the underrepresented sex to pursue a vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in professional careers.”
  • 31. Women would have better chances to integrate themselves to jobs that are culturally biased to only men -> it would gradually diminish the social prejudice about which jobs belong to only women and to men
  • 32. The chances rise that men candidates are not chosen because of their sex </li></ul>
  • 33. What was ECJ:s Judgment ?? <ul><li>European Court of Justice concluded that:
  • 34. the Directive does not preclude HGIG and its provisions about advancement plans for women
  • 35. And also that:
  • 36. There is nothing unlawful about the rule to prefer women candidates over men, if : </li></ul>
  • 37. <ul>There is nothing unlawful about the rule to prefer women candidates over men, if : <li>The applied job belongs to under-represented sector of women
  • 38. Both male and female candidates have equal qualifications
  • 39. Individual circumstances of male and female candidates are taken in to account
  • 40. The decision for women candidate is not absolute and automatic </li></ul>
  • 41. Recent happenings in Great Britain about supporting women applicants in job markets:
  • 42.  
  • 43. There were also people who found positive discrimination or action bad...
  • 44. Chris Ward - Speech against positive discrimination at Lib Dem Conference 2010
  • 45. Case search: <ul><li>http://curia.europa.eu/
  • 46. -> names of the parties: Badeck
  • 47. -> court: Court of Justice
  • 48. Also used Google.com to gather a general opinion what Case-law C-158/97 or Badeck had risen in the public </li></ul>
  • 49. WHAT HAVE I LEARNED? <ul><li>In this subject: </li></ul>
  • 50. <ul><li>First: in my opinion it is good that equality of the sexes are protected in EU-law and that EU expects from its Member States to strive for this
  • 51. Second : Case-laws and the decisions of the European Court of Justice will affect the Member States' policy greatly -> but it can have expected and also unexpected results (like in this case, Great Britain discrimination of equally qualified men)
  • 52. Third : People will always have different opinions and they always have the ability to interpret law clauses differently -> law, although written, can still cause different opinions -> law has the ability to lose its original meaning </li></ul>
  • 53. Critical reflection about the course
  • 54. Likes and dislikes of the course <ul><li>Likes:
  • 55. - I really liked the activities when we did things together -> helps people to know others and theirselves (in a group)
  • 56. - Teacher was helpful and one could easily approach and ask questions from him
  • 57. - tasks and activities were said usually clearly
  • 58. - I got to know new people and about Spanish law and legislation </li></ul>
  • 59. Likes and dislikes of the course <ul><li>Dislikes:
  • 60. - there were maybe too much computer using for the tasks in the class -> which resulted that people were surfing on Facebook while teacher tried to explain the task or topic
  • 61. - the main point or the reason, why are we learning this or doing this today, sometimes did not reach the students </li></ul>
  • 62. Thank You! I had fun being on this course!!

×