Christa Tobler

CEDAW and the European Union's Policy in the Field of Combating gender Discrimination.

This paper aims to show that the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) can provide inspiration and open new avenues to solve some of the problems that are the consequence of the currently insufficient approach to gender equality under European Community law. It is argued that the approach of CEDAW should be applied in both interpreting existing EC law and in making new law. In interpreting existing EC sex equality law, the Conventions role as a source of inspiration must be taken much more seriously than is currently the case. As for the drafting of new law, it is true that the EC itself is not a signatory to CEDAW and, therefore, not bound by the Convention in a strict legal sense. However, the Member States are signatories. As such, they are under an obligation to take the Convention seriously, an obligation that also relates to the making of EU and EC Treaty law that, in turn, provides the framework for the adoption of secondary EC law.

Procreation Time : pregnancy and childbirth in EC sex equality law

This paper focuses on one of the most obvious points of difference in the use of time by men and women, namely, on the time spent by women in the context of procreation. From a legal perspective, the paper discusses the question of how the European Communitys sex equality law - and, more specifically, selected case law by the Court of Justice of the European Communities - as well as the legal theories underlying that law, address the issues of pregnancy and confinement. One of the findings is that an accurate time perspective seems to be lacking both in law and in theory.

One of Many Challenges after ‘Brexit’: The Institutional Framework of an Alternative Agreement — Lessons from Switzerland and Elsewhere?:

Defining an alternative arrangement for the UKs future relationship with the European Union following ‘Brexit’ will raise both substantive and institutional issues. In the public debate, the latter tend to be underestimated. The present article is based on the thesis that, should the UK seek a market access agreement based on EU law rules, it will face strict institutional demands from the Union that go far beyond the element, often mentioned in the ‘Brexit’ debate in the context of EEA membership, of having to accept EU-made law as it comes. The thesis is derived from experience with the EUs legal arrangements with other partners, notably the EFTA States as well the current negotiations with Andorra, Monaco and San Marino.

The prohibition of discrimination in the Union's layered System of Equality Law : From early staff cases to the Mangold approach

According to the Court’s case-law, a prohibition of discrimination can flow not only from enacted (written) Union law but also from (unwritten) general principles. Faced with the lack, or limited reach, of written non-discrimination law, the Court recognised the existence of two layers of general principles of equality, namely a general principle of equality tout court (i.e. a principle that is not linked to any discrimination ground) and a number of general principles of equality linked to particular discrimination grounds. In the resulting multi-level system, the Mangold line of case-law in particular raises questions not only about the relevance and function of the general principles of equality in the larger system of Union law, but also about the interrelation between the different layers of equality law and the meaning of the prohibition of discrimination on the level of the general principles. The contribution traces the creation through the Court’s case-law of the layered system of equality law and its practical implications.

Dispute Resolution Under the EEA Agreement

The EEA enforcement system includes, in particular, the mechanism pursuant to Article 111 EEA for the settlement of disputes between the Member States with respect to the interpretation and the application of EEA law. The chapter describes the different elements of this mechanism and discusses its practical relevance. It also draws a comparison with the legal regimes between the EU and two non-Member States, namely Turkey and Switzerland, respectively.