The New Architecture of EU Equality Law after CHEZ: Did the Court of Justice reconceptualise direct and indirect discrimination?

The Court of Justice’s decision of the 16 July 2015, in Case C-83/14 CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, is a critically important case for two main reasons. First, it represents a further step along the path of addressing ethnic discrimination against Roma communities in Europe, particularly in Bulgaria, where the case arises. Second, it provides interpretations (sometimes controversial interpretations) of core concepts in the EU antidiscrimination Directives that will be drawn on in the application of equality law well beyond Bulgaria, and well beyond the pressing problem of ethnic discrimination against Roma. This article focuses particularly on the second issue, the potentially broader implications of the case. In particular, it will ask whether the Court of Justice’s approach in CHEZ is subtly redrawing the boundaries of EU equality law in general, in particular by expanding the concept of direct discrimination, or whether the result and the approach adopted is sui generis, one depending on the particular context of the case and the fact that it involves allegations of discrimination against Roma, and therefore of limited general application.

Expecting Too Much: European Union’s Minority Protection Hide-and-Seek

EU’s deference to the Member State approaches in minority protection can intensify the oppression of
the vulnerable groups, its insistence on non-discrimination on the basis of nationality in the minority regions with special rights in place can equally produce injustice. Its inability to protect EU-wide minorities, like the Roma, is equally problematic. Although a ‘value’, minority protection functions incoherently, if at all. It is time to approach the EU as a highly specific minority protection arena not to be confused with its component parts – the Member States. The reform of the Member State-centred thinking should start at the level of approaching the core issues. It should include the assessment of such questions as what is a minority in the EU’s context of a missing majority, what is the appropriate depth of EU’s intervention in the area of minority protection, i.e. how much room for manœuvre should reasonably be left with the Member States without disrupting the effectiveness of EU’s regulation, as well as the approach to defining what a success in minority protection should be, in the
EU context. The latter should be done, in particular, with due regard to the division of competences between the EU and the Member States in this and other relevant fields. This paper briefly explores a series of diverse casestudies – from migrant EU citizens, Baltic Russians, and sexual minorities to, most importantly, Roma rights to make the first attempt to test the proposed synergetic approach.

The four general principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: the potential value of the approach in other areas of human rights law

At the outset of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Rights of the Child identified four of its provisions (non-discrimination; best interests of the child as a primary consideration; life, survival and development; and participation) as ‘general principles’. This approach has shaped implementation of, advocacy for and the scholarship on the Convention. The use of general principles has the potential to make a significant contribution in other areas of human rights law provided that the principles are selected carefully and address the distinct issues at the root of potential rights violations for particular rights-holders.