# C_2010134EN.01001901.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 24 February 2010 — Patrick Kelly v National University of Ireland

(Case C-104/10)

2010/C 134/29

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Patrick Kelly

Applicant:

Defendant: National University of Ireland

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 4(1) of Council Directive 97/80/EC (1) entitle an applicant for vocational training, who believes that he or she has been denied access to vocational training because the principle of equal treatment was not applied to him or her, to information on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training so that the applicant can ‘establish, before a court or other competent authority, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 4(1) of Council Directive 97/80/EC (1) entitle an applicant for vocational training, who believes that he or she has been denied access to vocational training because the principle of equal treatment was not applied to him or her, to information on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training so that the applicant can ‘establish, before a court or other competent authority, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination’?

1

| 2. | Does Article 4 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (2) entitle an applicant for vocational training who believes that he or she has been denied access to vocational training ‘on the basis of the same criteria’ and discriminated against ‘on grounds of sex’ in terms of accessing vocational training to information held by the course provider on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 4 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (2) entitle an applicant for vocational training who believes that he or she has been denied access to vocational training ‘on the basis of the same criteria’ and discriminated against ‘on grounds of sex’ in terms of accessing vocational training to information held by the course provider on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training?

2

| 3. | Does Article 3 of Council Directive 2002/73/EC (3) prohibiting ‘direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex’ in relation to ‘access’ to vocational training entitle an applicant for vocational training who claims to have been discriminated against ‘on the grounds of sex’ in terms of accessing vocational training to information held by the course provider on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 3 of Council Directive 2002/73/EC (3) prohibiting ‘direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex’ in relation to ‘access’ to vocational training entitle an applicant for vocational training who claims to have been discriminated against ‘on the grounds of sex’ in terms of accessing vocational training to information held by the course provider on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training?

3

| 4. | Does the nature of the obligation under Article 267, para. 3 TFEU differ in a Member State with an adversarial (as opposed to inquisitorial) legal system and, if so, in what respect? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the nature of the obligation under Article 267, para. 3 TFEU differ in a Member State with an adversarial (as opposed to inquisitorial) legal system and, if so, in what respect?

| 5. | Can any entitlement to information under the aforesaid Directives be affected by the operation of national or European laws relating to confidentiality? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can any entitlement to information under the aforesaid Directives be affected by the operation of national or European laws relating to confidentiality?

---

(1)  Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex

1

OJ L 14, p. 6

(2)  Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions

2

OJ L 39, p. 40

(3)  Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (Text with EEA relevance)

3

OJ L 269, p. 15

---