The constitution of Land of Hesse with EU Directive </li></ul>
<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 ”
So technically a law that promotes equal rights between genders in Hesse </li></ul>What is HGIG??
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”
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>
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
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>
<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)
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>
<ul><li>It is actually defined in Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 :
Article 2.1: , the principle of equal treatment shall
mean that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever
on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by
reference in particular to marital or family status. </li></ul>What is Principle of Equal Treatment?
<ul><li>this question arised by Badeck about the contradiction of national law and EU Directive resulted that the question was asked from
the European Court of Justice (ECJ) </li></ul>
<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
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 "the principle of equal treatment."
But before the Judgment, let us think the perspectives of both sides, mainly women's and men's. What problems could the judgment rise???
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
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
Men would not have to feel that they were not selected because of their sex
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>
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.”
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
The chances rise that men candidates are not chosen because of their sex </li></ul>
What was ECJ:s Judgment ?? <ul><li>European Court of Justice concluded that:
the Directive does not preclude HGIG and its provisions about advancement plans for women
Also used Google.com to gather a general opinion what Case-law C-158/97 or Badeck had risen in the public </li></ul>
WHAT HAVE I LEARNED? <ul><li>In this subject: </li></ul>
<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
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)
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>