COMMISSION PROPOSALS TO COMBAT DISCRIMINATION
(a)
(20771)
13537/99
COM(99) 567
(b)
(20801)
13540/99
COM(99) 565
(c)
(20816)
13536/99
COM (99) 564
(d)
(20831)
—
COM(99) 566
|
Draft Council Decision establishing a Community Action Programme to combat discrimination (2001-2006).
Draft Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.
Commission Communication on certain Community measures to combat discrimination.
Draft Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.
|
| Legal base: |
(a), (b),(d): Article 13 EC; consultation; unanimity
(c) —
|
| |
| Document originated:
| (a) 25 November 1999
(b) —
(c) 25 November 1999
(d) —
|
| Forwarded to the Council:
| (a) 26 November 1999
(b) —
(c) 26 November 1999
(d) —
|
| Deposited in Parliament:
| (a) 14 December 1999
(b) 12 January 2000
(c) 6 January 2000
(d) 13 January 2000
|
| Department: |
(a) - (c) Education and Employment
(d) Home Office
|
| Basis of consideration:
| (a) EM of 6 January 2000
(b) EM of 6 January 2000
(c) EM of 6 January 2000
(d) EM of 11 January 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
4.1 This package of measures proposed by
the Commission is based on Article 13 EC, the new non-discrimination
clause inserted by the Amsterdam Treaty. The Article states: "Without
prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the
limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council,
acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after
consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action
to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin,
religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation."
4.2 Until now, Community legislation aimed
specifically at combating discrimination has targeted sex discrimination
only. Under Article 141 EC in particular, a range of measures
upholding the principle of equality between men and women has
been adopted over the last twenty years or so. Of special relevance
to the current proposals are Directive 76/207/EEC (Equal Treatment)
and Directive 97/80/EC (Burden of Proof).
The documents
4.3 The package comprises:
- an overview in the form of a Communication on
Community measures to combat discrimination (document (c));
- a draft Decision establishing a Community Action
Programme (document (a));
- a draft Directive establishing a framework for
equal treatment in employment (document (b)); and
- a draft Directive implementing the principle
of equal treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (document
(d)).
4.4 The proposals in documents (a), (b)
and (d) exclude sex discrimination, partly because there is already
extensive secondary legislation in this area, and partly because
the Commission is currently preparing a new programme on gender
equality. However, the Commission is committed to ensuring the
inclusion of a "gender perspective" within all the elements
of the package.
4.5 Each of the documents is described below:
— Document (c)
4.6 The Communication sets out the background
to the package, in terms of the international, national and Community
context, and outlines the process of consultation which contributed
to its development. It notes considerable diversity in the laws
of the Member States on the right to equality and the prohibition
of discrimination. Although it recognises the relevance of the
promised Charter of Fundamental Rights, it does not consider that
it would be appropriate to make the Article 13 proposals dependent
upon the final adoption of the Charter.
4.7 The Communication then outlines the
elements in the package and provides a general justification for
them in relation to subsidiarity and proportionality. It summarises
the contents and its general approach as follows:
"The Commission is taking a reasonable, progressive
and pragmatic approach. The Action Programme aims to raise awareness
about discrimination in general, which affects a significant number
of people either directly or indirectly. The two directives lay
down a limited number of requirements, while leaving the necessary
margin of discretion to the Member States in how they choose to
apply them.
"The two proposed Directives are intended to
give effect to Article 13 of the Treaty. The first Directive establishes
a general framework for equal treatment in the employment field,
by prohibiting discrimination on the various grounds set forth
in Article 13. The second directive is a response to the many
calls to combat racism in fields beyond employment, prohibiting
discrimination in other areas which fall within the competence
of the Community".
4.8 The document explains the overlap between
the two Directives (both cover discrimination based on racial
or ethnic origin in employment) as follows: "the reason for
this is that the proposals, while similar in design, are intended
to be independent pieces of legislation that could stand alone.
If one Directive were adopted by the Council before the other,
the remaining proposal would be amended accordingly".
— Document (a)
4.9 The proposal is for an action programme
to run for six years, from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2006
at a cost of 100 million euros. In addition to the Member States,
EFTA/EEA countries, the associated countries of Central and Eastern
Europe, Cyprus, Malta and Turkey will be eligible to participate.
The programme will address all grounds of discrimination covered
by Article 13 except sex discrimination. The Commission's
explanatory memorandum states: "There is no hierarchical
ranking of priorities between the grounds covered by the proposed
action programme: it will address discrimination across the board
rather than to provide separately for action on the different
grounds, incorporating a gender dimension where appropriate".
4.10 The action programme has three main
objectives:
- to improve understanding of issues related to
discrimination through improved knowledge and measurement and
evaluation of policies and practice;
- to develop the capacity of Member States, regional
and local authorities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs),
the social partners and other "target actors" to address
discrimination; and
- to promote and disseminate 'values and practices
underlying the fight against discrimination'.
4.11 In order to achieve these aims the
proposal provides for transnational actions in three main areas:
- collection of statistics, studies and development
of indicators and benchmarks and evaluation of anti-discrimination
legislation;
- co-operation between "target actors"
in particular through support for the exchange of information
and good practice at European level and provision of core funding
to enable major European-level networks to contribute effectively
to policy development in this field; and
- awareness raising through communications, publications,
campaigns and events, targeting opinion formers in particular.
4.12 An advisory committee composed of Member
States' representatives will assist the Commission in running
the programme.
4.13 There is an emphasis in the document
on the importance of co-ordination and synergy with other Community
programmes.
— Documents (b) and (d)
4.14 The two draft Directives have some
significant features in common. Their definitions of both direct
and indirect discrimination are substantially the same.
Direct discrimination is taken to occur "where
[on any of the various specific grounds] one person is treated
less favourably than another is, has been or would be ".
Indirect discrimination is taken to occur "when an
apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice is liable
to adversely affect a person or persons to whom any of the [various
specific] grounds... applies, unless that provision is objectively
justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving it are
appropriate and necessary." Both draft Directives include
harassment as a prohibited form of discrimination.
4.15 Both proposals also follow Directive
97/80/EC (Burden of Proof) — which addresses sex equality
and is already binding on the UK — in providing for the
reversal of the burden of proof where evidence is adduced from
which discrimination may be presumed.
— Document (b)
4.16 The EM helpfully summarises the main
features of this draft Directive as follows:
"The framework Directive in the area of employment
would prohibit direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds
of a person's racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability,
age or sexual orientation and harassment based on these grounds.
In the area of disability, it would also provide for 'reasonable
accommodation' to be made to enable disabled people to participate
or advance in employment. It would apply to conditions for access
to employment, self-employment and occupation, including selection
criteria and recruitment conditions, access to vocational guidance
and training, employment and working conditions including dismissals,
pay, and membership of, involvement in, and benefits from, organisations
of workers or employers, and professional organisations.
"The Directive would provide for certain exceptions,
allowing differences of treatment on the above mentioned grounds
where this is justified by the need for a genuine occupational
qualification. The case of religious organisations is mentioned
separately in this context as are certain circumstances in which
direct discrimination on grounds of age is justified.
"The Directive would allow for, but not require,
positive action to compensate for disadvantages people might experience
because of their ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability,
age or sexual orientation. It would also allow Member States to
introduce or maintain more favourable provisions for the protection
of equal treatment than those laid down in the Directive.
"The Directive would reverse the burden of proof
in cases of alleged discrimination, other than in criminal procedures,
so that following the establishment of a prima facie case
to answer, it would be for the respondent to prove that there
had been no breach of the principle of equal treatment. The draft
Directive also covers victimisation to protect employees against
dismissal or other adverse treatment by the employer as a reaction
to a complaint on grounds of equal treatment".
— Document (d)
4.17 While this Directive is concerned with
discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin only, it
encompasses ("within the limits of the powers conferred upon
the Community") employment and training, social protection
and social security, social advantages, education and access to
goods and services — thereby covering a much wider field
than document (b). Moreover, preamble (10) explicitly extends
the Directive to nationals of third countries, although not to
differences of treatment based on nationality.
4.18 Like document (b), this draft Directive
permits an exception — in this case, where, by reason of
the nature or context in which particular occupational activities
are carried out, a racial or ethnic characteristic constitutes
"a genuine occupational qualification". Its provisions
on positive action, the admissibility of Member States' introducing
more favourable provisions than those laid down in the draft Directive,
the reversal of the burden of proof and protection against victimisation
are all substantially the same as those in document (b).
4.19 Unlike document (b), however, this
document provides for representative enforcement actions whereby
"associations, organisations and other legal entities"
can pursue such actions on behalf of a complainant. It also requires
Member States to establish an independent body or bodies "for
the promotion of the principle of equal treatment between persons
of different racial or ethnic origin".
The Government's view
4.20 The Secretary of State for Education
and Employment (The Rt. Hon. David Blunkett) has the main responsibility
for three of the four documents — (a), (b) and (c); the
Home Secretary (The Rt. Hon. Jack Straw) has the main responsibility
for the directive on racial discrimination — document (d).
Each of the EMs has been submitted by the relevant Department,
but there are common elements in them which suggest co-operation.
4.21 The Government tells us that the Portuguese
Presidency will decide on the timetable and handling of negotiations.
It is not yet known whether the package will be taken forward
as a whole or as individual elements.
4.22 In relation to documents (a), (b) and
(d), the Government is seeking the views of key external partners.
It promises a wider consultation process (which will include members
of the general public) once more is known about the Presidency
plans for progressing the documents.
— Document (c)
4.23 The Government does not consider that
this Communication has any policy implications.
— Document (a)
4.24 The Minister for Employment, Welfare
to Work and Equal Opportunities at the Department for Education
and Employment (The Rt. Hon. Tessa Jowell)
comments on this proposal for a Community Action Programme as
follows:
"The Government welcomes the proposal for an
action programme in this area. The opening up of the programme
to EFTA and candidate countries is especially welcome as a step
towards combating discrimination in Europe more widely.
"The objective of evaluating policies and practice
as a means to improving the understanding of issues relating to
discrimination and evaluation of anti-discrimination legislation
is especially welcome since the lack of comparable data and other
information, even across the current fifteen Member States, is
a barrier to establishing an effective baseline from which progress
can be measured. It will, however, be important to ensure that
it builds on existing structures for the collection and dissemination
of information, such as the European Monitoring Centre for Racism
and Xenophobia in Vienna.
"During negotiations we will seek to ensure
that the balance of funding allocated to each strand of the programme
represents a good balance in terms of its objectives and that
these objectives are clear and fully justified. We will also be
particularly keen to ensure that procedures for selection of projects
are thorough and transparent. It will also be important to ensure
that the follow up and monitoring of projects is undertaken in
such a way as to ensure that projects have maximum value".
4.25 The Minister tells us that the Government
believes the proposal is generally consistent with the principle
of subsidiarity.
— Document (b)
4.26 While the Minister expresses a general
welcome for the proposals, she has several comments on this draft
Directive for equal treatment in employment and occupation. On
the impact on UK law, she notes:
"The UK already has anti-discrimination measures
covering the grounds of racial or ethnic origin (the Race Relations
Act 1976) and of disability (the Disability Discrimination Act
1995). The Race Relations Act, like the Directive, is based substantially
on sex discrimination law and thus is likely to require only minor
changes (for example, to implement the changes to the burden of
proof). There are nonetheless some changes from the sex discrimination
model (for example, a variation in the definition of indirect
discrimination) which it would also be necessary to reflect.
"The Disability Discrimination Act, however,
departs from the sex discrimination model in a number of respects.
The most important of these are that:
- the prohibition against discrimination under
section 4 of the Act is both applied differently from sex discrimination
law and capable of justification; and
- the Act does not include a prohibition on indirect
discrimination as such, but instead applies the concept of a duty
to make reasonable adjustments in favour of disabled people.
"The proposed Directive picks up the latter
concept. It allows for genuine occupational qualifications to
justify direct discrimination; but this does not appear to be
as wide as the general defence of justification under the Act.
It also applies direct and indirect discrimination models based
on the sex discrimination model to disability. If the Directive
were to remain in this form, the Act would require amendment.
In several cases the intention of the Directive is not clear,
and the Government will be examining these points further as negotiations
proceed.
"Finally, the framework Directive provides for
anti-discrimination measures on the grounds of religion or belief,
age and sexual orientation. New legislation would be required
to give effect to these measures (except in Northern Ireland,
where discrimination in employment and in the provision of goods,
facilities and services is currently unlawful)".
4.27 The Minister also comments on the proposal
in relation to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
While she believes the approach in line with these principles,
she considers that the detail of the proposal raises some issues.
She tells us:
"The Directive's requirement that Member States
ensure adequate dissemination of information within the workplace
goes further than is necessary; the level and nature of dissemination
of information being best decided at national or local level.
Similarly, the provisions requiring Member States to promote social
dialogue are over prescriptive. The Government will aim in negotiations
to ensure that a more satisfactory approach to these issues is
adopted".
4.28 With regard to the implications in
the proposal for policy and for business, the Minister comments:
"The Government is open to making necessary
and proportionate changes in this area to promote equal opportunities
if the case is made. However, the need to avoid unnecessary and
burdensome regulation will remain a priority in the Government's
considerations. It will also be guided by assessments of the progress
which can be achieved through non-legislative means such as codes
of practice. The possible requirement for legislative change differs
according to the type of discrimination.
- Race or ethnic origin: the proposal is largely
consistent with existing provisions and the minor changes are
on the whole not problematic, although we will be examining the
detail carefully to make sure that any changes are appropriate.
- Disability: as explained [above], the approach
taken by the Directive differs from domestic law in a number of
ways. We also have concerns that in following a sex discrimination
model, the Directive creates overlaps and loopholes which would
not be helpful to disabled people seeking to establish their rights.
For example, UK law would not allow an occupational qualification
to be cited as a reason for refusing to employ a disabled person
without consideration first of whether reasonable adjustments
could be made. This link does not seem to exist in the current
proposal. We intend to examine constructively with our partners
how the Directive can be improved in this area.
- Sexual orientation and age: the Government has
produced a Code of Practice on discrimination in employment based
on age and proposes that a Code of Practice on discrimination
on the ground of sexual orientation should be produced, in conjunction
with the Equal Opportunities Commission.
- Religion or belief: there are no generally applicable
provisions in GB statutory law on employment. However, as a result
of case law, Jews are recognised as a racial group and as such
protected under the Race Relations Act. Sikhs also receive protection
via special legal provisions, particularly in the Employment Act
1989. The Government is currently conducting research into this
complex area.
"The proposal will have implications for business.
A full analysis will be carried out in consultation with representative
organisations from the business world and this will inform negotiations.
This analysis will seek to establish what costs might be imposed
on business in order to comply with the terms of regulatory provisions
resulting from the Directive. These costs will take into account
direct expenditure and also administrative costs. The analysis
will also seek to assess any potential benefits (e.g. opening
up a wider pool of people from which employers can recruit) and
areas where new provision will have a neutral effect either because
of domestic provisions already in force (e.g. the Race Relations
Act) or because employers are voluntarily taking action (e.g.
under voluntary codes of practice on age or sexual orientation)".
— Document (d)
4.29 The Minister of State at the Home Office
(Mrs Barbara Roche) comments on the draft Directive implementing
the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective
of racial or ethnic origin. She says:
"The Government believes that the approach adopted
in the draft Directive is in line with the principles of subsidiarity
and proportionality. The Government will work in negotiations
at the Social Questions Working Group to ensure that the most
satisfactory outcome is adopted."
4.30 On the implications of the proposal
for UK policy, the Minister tells us:
"This Directive will mean the incorporation
of anti-discrimination measures (on grounds of racial or ethnic
origin) into domestic law and practices in all Member States in
the fields of employment and training, social protection and social
security, social advantages, education and access to goods and
services. In fact, the presence of a body of domestic law and
the current operational basis of the CRE[12]
mean that the UK is already complying with much of what is proposed.
"The UK's existing provisions in the area covered
by the Directive include the Race Relations Act 1976, and the
Race Relations Bill currently before Parliament. Our negotiating
strategy will therefore have to take account of an evolving domestic
agenda.
"The Government supports the principles enshrined
in Article 13 and welcomes the Commission's proposals as a step
forward in combating discrimination and exclusion across the EU.
The detail of the race Directive will have to be considered carefully
especially with a view to how certain proposals (e.g. indirect
discrimination) will work in practice in relation to each of the
fields covered by the Directive. Indirect discrimination would
have to apply to a wider range of public authority duties than
is currently envisaged in the Race Relations Bill.
"We welcome the Commission's recognition of
the shared responsibility between the Community and Member States
in the field of education; but are not convinced that Article
3 as currently drafted gives a clear indication of which aspects
of education would be covered by the Directive. The Community
has to date only considered it appropriate to be involved to a
very limited extent in educational matters, and we are concerned
to ensure that action in this area only takes place at the Community
level to the extent that it can be better achieved by the Community
than by the Member States".
4.31 The Minister makes the same comments
on the impact of the proposal on business as her colleague does
on document (b). Like her, she promises that a full analysis will
be carried out in consultation with relevant organisations from
the business world.
Conclusion
4.32 This is a significant package of
proposals and we are likely to have more points to raise as negotiations
continue. At this stage, we have a number of questions for the
Ministers about the package as a whole and about the draft Directives
in particular.
— The package
(i) Neither the documents nor the Government's
EMs make any significant mention of the qualification in Article
13 of the EC Treaty: "within the limits of the powers conferred
by it upon the Community". We note that this qualification
is (deliberately) different from that in Article 12 (discrimination
on grounds of nationality), which refers to "the scope of
application" of the Treaty. Matters not within the competence
of the EC can be within the scope of application of the Treaty
— to take two disparate examples, the organisation of the
Armed Forces for purposes of combat[13]
and the transliteration of a person's name from the Greek to the
Latin alphabet[14].
If the reference in Article 13 to powers should be read as a reference
to competences (as other language versions suggest), the scope
of Article 13 is, arguably, considerably narrower than that of
Article 12.
We seek the Ministers' view on
this qualification and, against that background, invite them to
comment on:
(a) document (a), which is not limited at
all by subject matter and which in Annex I includes within its
areas of action promotion of non-discrimination within and by
the police and the removal of discriminatory barriers to participation
in decision making and the democratic process. (Although the Decision
establishing the action programme is not, in the ordinary sense,
a legislative instrument, the Council's competence to adopt it
is qualified to the same extent as its competence to adopt the
two draft Directives);
(b) the application of document (d) to the
matters specified in its Article 3(e) to (h) ("social
protection and social security; social advantages; education,
including grants and scholarships ...; access to and supply of
goods and services") — especially given the comment
in the EM that the approach in this proposal is in line with the
principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
(ii) Does the Minister expect the authorisation
of positive action to be held to go wider than the corresponding
provision of the Equal Treatment Directive — would it go
as far as allowing, say, quotas for access to higher education
or employment in particular organisations?
(iii) Both proposals enable, in contrast to
the Equal Treatment Directive, hypothetical comparisons to be
made. What risks does the Minister see in allowing a claimant
to rely not only on actual conduct, but also on imputed conduct
about which hard and fast evidence may be lacking?
(iv) We find it difficult to understand the
rationale for the two draft Directives and the relationship between
them. Does the fact that document (b) is said to "establish
a framework" imply that further Directives related to it
will eventually appear? Why, given the breadth of the area, do
the two Directives overlap in content? (The explanation in document
(c) is inadequate[15]).
(v) We note that the definition of discrimination
in the action programme differs significantly from the approach
taken in the two draft Directives (which also differ between themselves
and from the definition of indirect discrimination in Directive
97/80 on the burden of proof). We invite the Ministers' views
on:
(a) the desirability of a single definition
of discrimination for all related purposes;
(b) which of the four approaches attempted
so far best fits with the case law of the ECJ; and
(c) the consequences for the Disability Discrimination
Act 1995 of the adoption of the concept of indirect discrimination
(the 1995 Act prohibits unjustified direct discrimination, while
imposing an extensive duty to take steps to enable a disabled
person to carry out the duties of his or her employment). Is it
the case that, as the EM suggests, the Act would have to be amended
if this proposal were adopted, or would it instead have to be
radically re-cast?
(vi) Do the Ministers expect, given
the similarity of approach and drafting to the Equal Treatment
Directive, that the two proposed Directives would have direct
effect?
(vii) If the ECJ does hold that the two Directives
would have direct effect, what are the consequences for the future
application of the measures given the elasticity of such phrases
as "ethnic origin" and "religious belief"?
For example, would the Ministers expect the ECJ to follow the
approach of the House of Lords in Mandla v Dowell Lee[16],
which held that an ethnic group is one which regards itself, and
is regarded, as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics?
Would the Minister expect a Community notion of religious belief
to extend to, for example, the Church of Scientology?
(viii) Given the Commission's assurance that
there is no prioritisation of the grounds for discrimination,
we wonder why discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin
has been selected for a Directive of its own. Similarly, we are
struck by the number of exemptions for age discrimination in document
(b), and we note the critical comments of the Secretary-General
of Eurolink Age[17]
in this regard. We seek the Minister's views about whether there
is, in fact, an implicit hierarchy in the proposals.
(ix) We are disappointed that neither of the
draft Directives requires the monitoring of statistics by, for
example, employers or public authorities — especially given
the focus on measurement and evaluation in the action programme
(document (a)). Do the Ministers agree with us that this is a
missed opportunity, and, if so, will they press for its inclusion?
— Document (b)
(x) In what circumstances would sexual orientation,
or ethnic origin constitute a genuine occupational qualification?
(xi) Article 4(2) provides an exemption in
favour of religious organisations (and secular organisation having
broadly similar functions) where a relevant characteristic related
to that religion or belief is a genuine occupational qualification.
We ask the Ministers to explain:
(a) why this exemption applies to discrimination
on racial grounds in this document, but not in document (d);
(b) why such an exemption is thought necessary
in this document, but has never been considered necessary in the
Equal Treatment Directive;
(c) what consequences for the interpretation
of that Directive, particularly in relation to the exclusion of
women from ordination to the priesthood in the Roman Catholic
and Orthodox churches, would adoption of Article 4(2) have?
(xii) We are not clear about to whom this
measure would apply. Does the Government accept that paragraph
(10) of the preamble to document (d) is declaratory, so that both
proposals apply in the case of third country nationals who are
victims of discrimination on one of the relevant grounds?
If so, how does the Government reconcile its view
that "persons" in these proposals may, and does, include
third country nationals with the view, constantly reiterated to
us, that the general scope of the Treaty ratione personae
has to be understood by reference to the scope of its specific
provisions which are confined to EU nationals?
(xiii) We note that the Government favours
Codes of Practice in this area. Does the Minister think these
can satisfactorily implement the Directive?
— Document (d)
(xiv) According to the tenth preamble, the
prohibition of discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin
does not apply to differences of treatment based on nationality.
We invite the Ministers to comment on a case in which access to
particular employment in a Member State is restricted to EU citizens
(who are predominantly white), but denied to legally resident
third country nationals (who are in that State predominantly non-white).
Have not the latter, arguably, been indirectly discriminated against
on grounds of racial origin, given that the qualifying condition,
EU citizenship, is one which a higher proportion of whites than
non-whites can satisfy?
4.33 In general, we welcome the evidence
of Departmental co-operation in the EM s on these documents, and
the plans for extensive consultation. In due course, we shall
wish to know the outcomes of this exercise, and of the impact
assessments. At this stage, we will keep all the proposals under
scrutiny.
12 Commission for Racial Equality. Back
13 Case
C-273/97, Sirdar v The Army Board and the Secretary of State
for Defence, judgment of 26.10.1999, nyr, and Case C285/98,
Kreil v Federal Republic of Germany, judgment 11.1.2000,
nyr. Back
14 Case
C-168/91, Konstantinidis v Stadt Altensteig, 1993 ECR I
- 1191. Back
15 See
paragraph 4.8 above. Back
16 [1983]
2A.C.548. Back
17
"[The safeguard clause] provides employers with the opportunity
of pursuing a policy of discrimination against workers based on
their age, defeating the very purpose of the package of measures
in the fight against discrimination." Quoted in Agence
Europe No. 7625: 3 & 4 January 2000. Back
| 
