Dagmar Schiek

A New Framework on Equal Treatment of Persons in EC Law

In June and November 2000, the European Parliament and the Council adopted two Directives referring to ‘the principle of equal treatment irrespective of’ in their title, one relating to racial and ethnic origin, the other to disability, age, religion and belief or sexual orientation. A thorough reform of Directive 76/207/EEC on the principle of equal treatment for women and men in employment matters is pending between the European Parliaments second reading and adoption while this is written. Community secondary legislation on equal treatment of persons has thus expanded in scope and number of reasons which must not serve as starting points for differentiation. Does this signify progress in legal protection against personal discrimination? While not providing a ready answer, this article proposes an analytical framework to answer this question, concentrating on conceptions of equality in general and in particular on the problems multi‐dimensional discrimination might pose for the law.

Broadening the Scope and the Norms of EU Gender Equality Law: Towards a Multidimensional Conception of Equality Law

Introducing Article 13 and Article 3 (2) EC, the Treaty of Amsterdam fundamentally changed EU equality law, adding the prospect of multiplying the grounds of forbidden discrimination and their scope of application and at the same time creating a positive obligation on the part of the European Community ‘to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women’. Both provisions are placed in part one of the Treaty, under the heading ‘principles’, enhancing their relevance for interpreting the Treaty norms and secondary law.

Economic and social integration : the challenge for EU constitutional law

Contents: Introduction 1. Economic and Social Integration 2. EU Constitutional Law 3. The Trajectory of EU Constitutional Law 4. The EUs Judicial Constitution after Enlargement 5. Economic and Social Integration Under the EUs Normative Constitution Bibliography Index

European economic and social constitutionalism after the Treaty of Lisbon

Introduction Dagmar Schiek, Ulrike Liebert and Hildegard Schneider Part I. European Economic and Social Constitutionalism Between Norms and Practices: 1. Re-embedding economic and social constitutionalism: normative perspectives for the EU Dagmar Schiek 2. Reconciling market with social Europe? The EU under the Lisbon Treaty Ulrike Liebert 3. Constitutionalism between normative frameworks and the socio-legal frameworks of society Nicole Lindstrom 4. Observations on economic governance and the search for a European economic constitution Wouter Devroe and Pieter van Cleyenbreugel Part II. Emanations of Tensions Between Economic and Social Integration: 5. Circular migration: a triple win situation? Wishful thinking or a serious option for a sustainable migration policy? Hildegard Schneider and Anja Wiesbrock 6. EU Company regulation between economic and social integration Thomas Biermeyer 7. Services of general economic interest under EU law constraints Ulla Neergaard Part III. Studying Cases of Possible Tensions: 8. Civic integration of immigrants: a challenge to proportionality and non-discrimination in the common European immigration policy? Sergio Carrera and Anja Wiesbrock 9. Corporate social responsibility: assessing the scope for an EU policy Sandra Kroger 10. Services of general interest provision through the third sector under EU competition law constraints - the example of organising healthcare in England, Wales and the Netherlands Ida Wendt and Andrea Gideon.

Sex equality law after Kalanke and Marschall

In Marschall, the ECJ looked for the second time into the admissibility of positive action in German public services; a third reference on this issue is still pending. Despite the Court’s positive response to the ‘women’s quota’ in Marschall, its application in Germany remains controversial. This article tries to shed some light on the specific conditions under which women’s quotas were implemented in Germany and on the different approaches to anti-discrimination, indirect discrimination law and structural discrimination, which underlie efforts to justify women’s quotas against equality standards derived from EC Law.

Was Personalverantwortliche über das Verbot der mittelbaren Geschlechtsdiskriminierung wissen sollten

Als die Personalverantwortlichen des US-amerikanischen Konzerns Duke Power Co in den 60er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts mit dem gesetzlichen Verbot der Diskriminierung wegen der Rasse konfrontiert waren, mussten sie auch die Anforderung „whites only“ fallen lassen, die zuvor bei der Besetzung bestimmter Stellen galt. Stattdessen forderten sie von Bewerberinnen und Bewerbern auf eine Position, die vorher nur Weisen zuganglich war, dass diese entweder einen High School Abschluss vorwiesen oder aber bei einem „Ability Test“ bestimmte Mindestwerte erzielten. Aufgrund der Bildungssegregation erfullten die meisten schwarzen Bewerberinnen und Bewerber diese Anforderung nicht. Einige von ihnen klagten wegen Verletzung des Diskriminierungsverbotes und hoben insbesondere hervor, dass fur die ausgeschriebene Stelle das geforderte Ausbildungsniveau gar nicht notwendig war. Der US Supreme Court erkannte, dass es sich tatsachlich um Diskriminierung handelte, und zwar um mittelbare Diskriminierung. Vorsitzender Richter Berger begrundete die Position der Mehrheit: „Das Ziel, das der Kongress bei der Verabschiedung der (Antidiskriminierungsgesetzgebung) verfolgte (…), war es, gleiche Beschaftigungschancen zu erreichen und die Hurden zu entfernen, die in der Vergangenheit zugunsten bestimmter Gruppen weiser Arbeitnehmer wirkten. Nach dem Gesetz durfen Praktiken, Verfahren oder Tests nicht aufrechterhalten werden, die zwar vom Erscheinungsbild und sogar von ihrer Intention her neutral sind, sofern sie faktisch den ‚Status quo‘ der bisherigen diskriminierenden Einstellungspolitiken verstetigen.

The EU's Socio-Economic Model(s) and the Crisi(e)s – Any Perspectives?

This paper criticises the assumption that maintaining the EU Socio-Economic Model(s) has become difficult only with the three crises that rattled the world and the € area from 2008. It concedes, however, that tensions between the political priorities underlying the EU internal market, Economic and Monetary Union and the competitiveness agenda of EU socio-economic governance on the one hand and the values of social inclusion and social justice proclaimed as all-encompassing by the EU Treaties have become more apparent. While there is no philosophers stone on how to alleviate these tensions, the paper identifies four key issues that need to be addressed: (1) the institutional asymmetry of the EUs economic and monetary union (EMU), stemming from unifying the currency and maintaining national prerogatives in economic policies, (2) substantive tensions between the EUs so called economic constitution and its normative commitment to social justice, (3) the question whether and how socio-economic policy can be delivered at EU levels in the absence of legislative competences and (4) the future of the EU and its socio-economic model as a global load star. The paper initially develops the notion socio-economic model in three dimensions: as a heuristic tool identifying a common core of the national socio-economic models, as programmatic notion and finally as an (incomplete) normative commitment. Having concluded that the EU is normatively committed to reconcile economic and social aspects of its models, it proceeds to identify cleavages in the EU governance modes available. It questions one of the assumptions underlying the hypothesis of the asymmetry of European integration: the assumption that negative integration, by enforcing Treaty Law through the Court of Justice is more successful than positive integration, especially if the latter has to rely on mere policy coordination instead of legislation. It can be shown that the combination of all three modes of governance, which is available in EU economic policy at times, is the most efficient. This even holds true if - as in economic policy - legislative harmonisation is replaced by executive coercion for a certain set of national policies. The paper does not offer a solution as to how EU level socio-economic policy efficiency can be achieved in the absence of consensus and competence, though. It merely concludes that the way forward lies in combining deeper integration with respect for diversity of the EUs regions, and the establishment of transnational solidarity.

Outsmarting the gig-economy through collective bargaining – EU competition law as a barrier to smart cities?

ABSTRACT In August 2016, drivers delivering meals in London after being booked via the platforms ‘deliveroo’ and ‘UberEATS’ made headlines by challenging working practices in the gig-economy through collective industrial action. Dissatisfaction resulted from extremely low levels of pay as well as a new payment calculation system being introduced without consultation. This indicates that the ‘gig-economy’, though arguably contributing to ‘smart cities’, may not always constitute the smartest solution for those serving within it. However, it also highlights that collective industrial action is far from structurally impossible for workers in the ‘gig-economy’, even though management of labour relies on anonymous and automated micro-management through internet platforms and apps. Indeed, collective organisation may seem the smartest solution for upgrading the gig-economy for its workers. This article develops an original contribution to the interface of smart technology in the gig-economy, collective labour rights, and EU competition law. We identify that EU competition law as interpreted by the Court of Justice would hinder collective organisation of those serving the gig-economy and develop a comprehensive re interpretation which allows adaptation of EU competition law to smart employment markets.

Towards More Resilience for a Social EU – The Constitutionally Conditioned Internal Market

Gap between the EU’s normative commitments to socio-economic justice and the practical workings of its integration project -Potential for strengthening the Social EU by recourse to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) – CFREU normatively commits EU to a constitutionally conditioned Internal Market – CFREU curbs property rights and entrepreneurial freedom specifically for the sake of social rights guarantees – constructive response to legitimacy dilemmas emerging from cases such as Laval, Viking and AGET Iraklis – reinstating socially embedded constitutionalism at EU levels as an alternative to relegating social integration to national levels.

Revisiting intersectionality for EU Anti-Discrimination Law in an economic crisis –a critical legal studies perspective

L’articolo esamina come la legislazione dell’Unione europea contro la discriminazione metta alla prova le misure anti-crisi dell’UE dal una prospettiva di critical legal studies. Tali studi si caratterizzano per la loro sfida alla ‘lex’ attraverso il riferimento allo ‘ius’ e i loro collegamenti critici con i movimenti sociali. La legislazione della UE contro la discriminazione attrae critiche in quanto costituisce un campo socio-giuridico compartimentato che impedisce di rendere giustizia a coloro che si trovano all’intersezione tra diseguaglianze. Definendo, come scopo della legislazione comunitaria contro la discriminazione, la lotta contro gli svantaggi derivanti dall’alterita ascritta attorno ai nodi ‘sesso/genere’, ‘razza/etnia’ e ‘disabilita’, l’articolo propone una convincente visione normativa, idonea a de-compartimentare il campo e ad indirizzare in modo adeguato l’intersezionalita. Questa prospettiva critico-giuridica sull’intersezionalita differisce dalla prospettiva sociologica in quanto omette la classe come categoria. L’articolo dimostra che questa distinzione e necessaria affinche la legislazione EU contro la discriminazione mantenga il suo taglio critico.