Tiesioginės diskriminacijos samprata pagal rasių lygybės, užimtumo lygybės ir lyčių lygybės direktyvas.
MetadataShow full item record
Gender discrimination case law of European Court of Justice established fundamental principles and influenced both the jurisprudence and case law of the examining discrimination cases on gender and other discrimination grounds. In the paper, the concept of direct discrimination formulated in the Race and Occupation equality directives applied under them, later taken by other directives and national law, is analyzed. Lithuania, the same as the other Member States, defined the direct discrimination concept in the way as it was formulated in the directives. The content of the prohibition of discrimination depends on the content of equality. There is a difference between formal and substantive equality—the implementation of formal and substantive equality is reflected in the case law of the ECJ and national courts. Direct discrimination is one of the discrimination forms and it is distinguished as the prime form of discrimination. As was stated in the early case law of the EJC, direct discrimination is not always overt. The covert form of direct discrimination is becoming more common. These elements of direct discrimination can be enumerated—the symmetric structure of the concept, which shows the equal protection of both majority and minority of people; comparison, which shows the requirement to compare as many similar situations as possible to less favourable treatment due to dependence on discrimination grounds consolidated in the law; and the possibility to justify direct discrimination if only there are narrow exceptions consolidated in the law. The problem of comparison of situations is often faced by courts. There is no criterion that could direct a proper comparison in discrimination cases. The requirement to compare with other persons in a similar situation allows comparison of real situations and the possibility to compare situations in the past and hypothetical situations. The law omissions authorise courts to use the instrument of comparison flexibly, so consequently the problem of impartiality and incoherence of implementation of non-discrimination law can be raised. As the main element in examining the fact of direct discrimination, the element of comparison is criticised in present scientific papers because it is desirable but not a necessary element. It is considered that the main element in examining the fact of direct discrimination is less favourable treatment—it can be established following the criterion only of exceptional feature. There has to be a direct link between less favourable treatment and the grounds of discrimination consolidated in the law. The practice of stereotypes is widely considered as form of direct discrimination. The perpetrator’s aim and purpose to discriminate is not a necessary condition of liability even if the respondent appeal on the customers is money saving or conflict avoiding. Examining the basis of justifying direct discrimination, the justifications, exceptions, and exclusions are distinguished. Exceptions that can justify direct discrimination are finitive and narrow. Lithuanian law prohibits direct discrimination justification apart from narrow exceptions consolidated in the legislation. One of the exceptions that is consolidated in the legislation is the necessary and genuine occupational requirements that must be proportional and lawful.
- Articles / Straipsniai