Activites

• 1998/01/20 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 1997/80
  • OJ L 014 20.01.1998, p. 0006
• #2060
• 1997/12/15 Council Meeting
• 1997/12/15 End of procedure in Parliament
• 1997/12/15 Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
• 1997/11/06 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T4-0531/1997 summary

    In adopting the recommendation for second reading by Mrs Fiorella GHILARDOTTI (PSE, I), the European Parliament approved the Council's common position on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex, tabling again some of the amendments adopted at first reading relating to: - the reference to three directives on equal treatment, namely Directives 79/7/EEC (social security), 86/378/EEC (occupational social security schemes) and 86/613/EEC (self-employed workers); - the definition of indirect discrimination: Parliament proposed a new wording of this definition which took account of the points highlighted by the Court; - the procedure: Parliament proposed that the Member States should include in their own legal systems procedures to make the legislation effective and to provide a more level playing field between plaintiff and defendant in terms of access to information. Finally, Parliament called on the Member States to inform the Commission of the progress made in implementing the directive by 1 January 2002 and then every three years. �

• 1997/11/05 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur was delighted that the United Kingdom had decided to participate in the directive on the reversal of the burden of proof in cases of sexual discrimination. Regretting that the Council had not taken over Parliament’s amendments, Mrs Ghigliardotti had decided to re-table at second reading those amendments which she regarded as fundamental. Commissioner Flynn criticised the Council’s position with regard to defining the concept of discrimination. The four elements cited by the Court of Justice and included in the base proposal had not been fully taken over in the common position. As regards the scope of the directive, he considered that shifting the burden of proof was a general principle which should be applied to all social legislation. The Commissioner said that the Commission could accept the amendments which strengthened the central provisions of the common position, namely Amendments Nos 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8. However, he rejected Amendments Nos 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 and also Amendments Nos 11 and 12, which contradicted Amendments Nos 1 and 6.

• 1997/10/20 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A4-0326/1997
• 1997/09/18 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2026
• 1997/07/24 Council Meeting
• 1997/07/10 Council position published
  • 09569/1997 summary

    The Council's common position differed significantly from the Commission's proposal and took over only a few of the amendment adopted by the European Parliament at first reading. The main amendments adopted by the Council related to the following points: - the need to take account of the specific features of some of the Member States' legal systems in connection with the burden of proof: the Council provided a derogation from the principle laid down in the directive on the burden on proof because of administrative procedures linked to the legal systems in certain Member States. This derogation was aimed mainly at satisfying the British delegation, which, since the conclusion of the Treaty of Amsterdam, was able to take part in discussions on social policy with due regard for the provisions of the Social Protocol; - the definition of 'indirect discrimination': the Council's definition differed from that proposed by the Commission and therefore from that used by the Court in its judgments on equal treatment. However, the Council did refer in its definition to an 'apparently neutral criterion or practice' which affected 'a substantially higher proportion of the members of one sex'. Similarly, the Council was less precise than the Commission in its definition of the 'facts' which defined the existence of discrimination; - the reference to marital or family status: the Council deleted all references to marital status or family circumstances as a basis for discrimination; - the scope (reference to specific directives): like the European Parliament, the Council added the reference to the Directive on parental leave, but it excluded all references to Directives 79/7/EEC, 86/378/EEC and 86/613/EEC on social security. Moreover, it limited references to Directives 92/85/EEC and 96/24/EC on pregnant women and parental leave in cases of discrimination based on sex. Similarly, the Council did not agree with the Commission's suggestion seeking the inclusion of situations covered by any measures adopted in future; - the benefit of the doubt: the Council did not specify that the plaintiff would benefit from any doubt that might subsist (as specified in the original proposal); - the procedures: the Council deleted the Commission's article on information to the parties to a dispute; - reference to positive action: the Council did not include the specific reference to the measures for positive action referred to in the Commission's amended proposal; - date of implementation: the time limit suggested by the European Parliament for the implementation of the directive in Member States (1 January 2000) was not approved by the Council. It decided instead to retain the initial date suggested by the Commission (1 January 2001); - report on implementation: the Council took over the European Parliament's amendment on the drawing-up of a report on the application of the directive two years after its implementation. However, it did not deem it necessary to repeat this exercise every three years. As regards Parliament's amendments, the Council only took over those concerning parental leave and the report on implementation. Finally, the Council called for the report on implementation to also consider the question of the scope of the directive, particularly as regards the application of the principle of non-discrimination in Community social legislation. �

• #2015
• 1997/06/27 Council Meeting
• 1997/05/14 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(1997)0202 summary

    In its amended proposal, the European Commission took over 12 of the 20 amendments adopted by Parliament at its first reading. These amendments were aimed mainly at strengthening the main provisions of its original proposal in terms of: - the definition of the concept of 'indirect discrimination': the criteria which determined whether or not indirect discrimination existed were defined more clearly; - the scope of the Directive: the amended proposal updated the original proposal and took into account Directive 96/34/EC on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC; - the adjustment of the burden of proof: the amended proposal made more apparent the link with the concept of indirect discrimination and the circumstances in which an adjustment of the burden of proof can occur. The amended proposal also highlighted those elements aimed at safeguarding the level of protection in Member States where a higher level of protection in this field was provided for: the Directive should under no circumstances be sufficient ground for justifying an absence of positive action measures on the part of the Member States. The amended proposal also took over Parliament's amendments seeking to shorten the time-limit for the implementation of this Directive: 1 January 2000 instead of 1 January 2001. It also included the amendment on the drawing-up of a report on the application of the Directive after it was implemented. �

• #1999
• 1997/04/17 Council Meeting
  • 1999
• 1997/04/10 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T4-0168/1997 summary

    In adopting the report by Mrs Ghilardotti (PSE, I), the European Parliament approved the proposal for a Council Directive on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex. The proposal, adopted under the Social Protocol procedure (i.e. by 14 Member States) includes the following amendments: - tightening the definition of 'indirect discrimination' so that it is applied uniformly in all Member States. Thus 'indirect discrimination' exists where 'an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice disproportionately disadvantages the members of one sex...unless the aim pursued corresponds to a real need of the undertaking or meets a necessary aim of the social policy of a Member State, in itself completely unrelated to gender' - provision on the sharing of the burden of proof: persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply to them the principle of equal treatment must establish facts from which direct or indirect discrimination may be presumed to exist; it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no contravention of the principle of equal treatment; - greater transparency of procedures: persons wishing to establish a case for the presumption of discrimination must have access to all the necessary information on which to base their case; - provision for follow-up to the directive: the Commission must inform the Council and Parliament of the progress made in the application of the directive on the basis of information provided by the Member States with effect from 1 January 2002 and thereafter every three years; - provision for the directive to be transposed into Member States' law at an earlier date (1 January 2000 instead of 1 January 2001). At the same time Parliament calls for the Directive not to prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures to protect women, particularly as regards pregnancy, maternity, childbirth and breast-feeding, or those providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for women to pursue a vocational activity. Moreover, the directive must on no account be used to justify a failure by the Member States to take positive action. �

• 1997/04/09 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The key amendments cited by the rapporteur included the amendment to Article 2, which introduced for the first time the definition of indirect discrimination in accordance with the Court of Justice’s ‘Bilka’ judgment (Case 170/84 [1986] ECR I‑1607), and the amendments to Article 4 which highlighted one of the fundamental elements in shifting the burden of proof, namely transparency, and which referred to the ‘Danfoss’ judgment (Case 109/88 [1989] ECR I-3199). Commissioner Flynn said that the Commission was prepared to accept most of the amendments, particularly those updating the text of the base proposal, those strengthening the definition of indirect discrimination, those on the implementation date (1 January 2000 instead of 1 January 2001) and the principle of a final report on the application of the directive.

• 1997/03/20 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0115/1997
• #1974
• 1996/12/02 Council Meeting
  • 1974
• 1996/10/23 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• #1948
• 1996/09/24 Council Meeting
  • 1948
• 1996/07/17 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(1996)0340 summary

    OBJECTIVE: The proposal for a Council directive seeks to adjust the balance of the burden of proof in favour of persons liable to suffer discrimination on the grounds of sex, in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice. SUBSTANCE: The Commission proposes that the burden of proof be transferred to the defendant in cases where the plaintiff has established a fact or facts from which less favourable treatment amounting to apparent discrimination may be presumed to exist (cf. Royal Copenhagen judgment of 31 May 1995). The defendant must then prove that there has been no violation of the principle of equal treatment, particularly by proving that the difference of treatment is based on objectively justifiable reasons unconnected with sex (cf. Enderby judgment of 27 October 1993). Once the discrimination has prima facie been established, Member States are asked to place on the defendant the burden of providing conclusive proof that the difference of treatment was not illegal. This is done by according the defendant the benefit of the doubt concerning the exact interpretation of the facts. Since this is a directive establishing minimum requirements, the proposal authorises Member States which wish to do so to impose a complete reversal of the burden of proof. The Commission also included a definition of the principle of equal treatment, as 'the absence of any discrimination based on sex, either directly or indirectly, particularly by reference to marital or family status'. A definition is also proposed, for the first time, of the notion of indirect discrimination. Such discrimination is held to exist 'where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice disproportionately disadvantages the members of one sex, by reference in particular to marital or family status'. Finally, the proposal includes an information requirement, namely that measures taken pursuant to the directive must be brought to the attention or all relevant persons by all appropriate means, for example at their place of employment. �

• #1892
• 1995/12/05 Council Meeting
  • 1892

Documents

• Debate in Council: 1892
• Legislative proposal published: COM(1996)0340
• Debate in Council: 1948
• Debate in Council: 1974
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A4-0115/1997
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0168/1997
• Debate in Council: 1999
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(1997)0202
• Council position published: 09569/1997
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A4-0326/1997
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T4-0531/1997
• : Directive 1997/80
• : OJ L 014 20.01.1998, p. 0006

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)