EN    EN EN
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 2.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2180 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
accompanying the 
Proposal for a  
 
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE  
 
on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of 
religion or belief, disabilit y, age or sexual orientation 
 
Impact Assessment  
{COM(2008) 426 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2181} 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
DRAFT COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
1. Executive summary...................................................................................................... 4 2. Background and institutional context .......................................................................... 6 3. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 7 
3.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 7 3.2. External expertise and information gathering.............................................................. 8 3.2.1. Public consultation..................................................................................................... .. 8 
3.2.2. Business sector consultation ........................................................................................ 9 3.2.3. Civil society organisations ........................................................................................... 9 3.2.4. Social partners......................................................................................................... ... 10 
3.2.5. Equality bodies......................................................................................................... .. 10 
3.2.6. Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board .......................................................... 10 4. Problem Definition..................................................................................................... 11 4.1. An outline of the problem .......................................................................................... 12 4.2. Nature and impact of discrimination.......................................................................... 13 4.2.1. Discrimination based on disability............................................................................. 13 4.2.2. Discrimination based on age ...................................................................................... 15 4.2.3. Discrimination based on sexual orientation ............................................................... 17 4.2.4. Discrimination based on religion or belief................................................................. 19 
4.3. Legal context............................................................................................................. . 20 
4.4. Likely development of the situation in th e absence of EU action (baseline scenario)23 
5. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 26 
6. Policy options............................................................................................................. 2 7 
6.1. No new action at EU level ......................................................................................... 27 6.2. Non-legally binding measures.................................................................................... 27 6.3. Legally binding measures .......................................................................................... 28 6.4. Preliminary screening of options ............................................................................... 29 6.4.1. Legally non-binding measures ................................................................................... 29 6.4.2. Legally binding measures .......................................................................................... 30 
EN 3   EN 7. Analysis of Impacts.................................................................................................... 32 
7.1. Option 1: No new action at EU level ......................................................................... 33 7.2. Option 2: Self–regulation........................................................................................... 35 7.3. Option 3: Specific Commission recommendation ..................................................... 37 7.4. Option 4: General Commission recommendation...................................................... 39 7.5. Option 5: Single-ground directive.............................................................................. 40 7.6. Option 6: Multi-ground directive............................................................................... 47 8. Comparison of options ............................................................................................... 51 9. Monitoring and evalua tion arrangements................................................................... 54 
9.1. Possible indicators...................................................................................................... 5 4 
9.2. Monitoring ................................................................................................................ . 55 
9.3. Transposition............................................................................................................. . 56 
ANNEX I: Summary of the consultation of the European level NGOs and social partners.... 57 
ANNEX II: Legal Framework.................................................................................................. 61 ANNEX III: Legal Situation in the Member States ................................................................. 65 ANNEX IV: EPEC Study – methodology and eff ects and impacts of discrimination ............ 74 
ANNEX V: UN Convention on the Rights of  Persons with Disabilities................................. 82 
ANNEX VI: International Instruments .................................................................................... 85 ANNEX VII: Proposals for indicators and sources of information ......................................... 87 
EN 4   EN 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
The right to equal treatment is a general principle of Community law1. Article 13 of 
the Treaty specifically allows action to co mbat discrimination based on sex, racial or 
ethnic origin, religion or belief, disa bility, age and sexual orientation. Yet 
discrimination still exists in many area s, such as access to goods and services, 
housing, education, social se rvices and health care. 
The present EC legal framework2 provides much more ex tensive prot ection from 
discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic orig in than from discrimination on grounds of 
religion or belief, disability, age or sexua l orientation. The current Commission committed 
itself early in its mandate to examining the cas e for extending the legal framework based on 
Article 13 EC, starting with the 2004 Green Paper 'Equality and non-discrimination in an 
Enlarged European Union' and continuing thro ugh to its 2008 legislative work programme3. 
– This Impact Assessment Report shows evid ence of discriminati on outside the labour 
market on grounds of religion or belief, disa bility, age and sexual orientation, based on a 
study commissioned by the Commission and evid ence gathered during an extensive 
consultation process. A substant ial number of people in the Eu ropean Union suffer from or 
are at risk of discrimination, which can limit gr eatly their ability to participate fully in 
education or work, and can le ad to isolation, poverty and welfare dependency. Some of 
these effects can be quantified, so me have a clear financial cost s, others are equally serious 
but subjective. The legal protection people can expect varies according to the grounds for 
discrimination concerned, to whether it takes pla ce in employment or in other areas of life, 
or to where they live. 
The table below summarises the existing legal framework at European level:  
Grounds 
Field Race Religion Disability Age Sexual 
orientation Sex 
Employment 
& vocational 
training Yes + 
Equality body Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes + 
Equality body 
Education Yes + 
Equality body No No No No No 
Goods and 
services Yes + 
Equality body No No No No Yes + 
Equality body 
Social 
protection Yes + 
Equality body No No No No Yes + 
Equality body 
This difference in protection from discrimina tion at EU and nationa l level has practical 
consequences: it means that the incidences of di scrimination identified in this Report are not 
addressed in a coherent manner. It means that  victims of discrimination have unequal means 
of redress depending on their Member State. It  also means that differences in protection 
                                                 
1 Case 203/86 Spain v Council, (paragraph 25, and Case C-15/95 EARL de Kerlast, paragraph 35), Case 
C-144/04 Mangold (paragraph 75). 
2 Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC and 2004/113/EC. 
3 COM (2007) 640. 
EN 5   EN afforded by the Member States may affect people's mobility as well as the cross-border 
marketing of goods and services. How should these issues be tackled? 
The objectives of any action would be to st ep up the protection of individuals from 
discrimination, achieve greater social inclusion and full participation by  all groups in society 
and the economy, and provide a clear legal fr amework across the Member States that can 
stimulate cross-border trad e and unfetter movement. 
A number of possibilities were looked at, and then narrowed down to a list of six options to 
be examined more fully: 
• no new action at EU level 
• self-regulation dealing with insura nce and/or financial services 
• a recommendation dealing specifically with th e competences of the equality bodies and 
multiple discrimination 
• a general recommendation encouraging the Member States to increase the level of 
protection against discrimination outside employment 
• a directive prohibiting discrimi nation based on disability  
• a directive prohibiting discrimi nation based on age, disabili ty, sexual orientation and 
religion or belief 
Each option is analysed to assess the extent to which it can meet the objectives. As far as 
possible, figures are provided to illustrate costs and be nefits to individual s, providers of goods 
and services, and society as a whole, although it should be pointed out that reliable data on 
discrimination and the related co sts can be difficult to find.  
The conclusion is that not acting is not an optio n: society, individuals  and the economy would 
continue to bear the costs of  discrimination. The most effec tive way to achie ve the stated 
objectives would be new legislation at EU level, since relying solely on national 
developments may result not only in those differen ces in the levels of pr otection being left in 
place but also in their wideni ng. The experience with the existing Directives was positive and 
resulted in a much higher level of protection against discrimination in many Member States 
than was the situation previously, or would have been without the impetus of EU action. 
Taking into account the results of the consulta tion process and the exte nt of discrimination 
reported, the option of a Directive prohibiting discrimination outside the employment 
sphere based on religion or belief, disability, ag e or sexual orientation is considered to be 
the most appropriate response . Any new legislation would bu ild on the concepts contained 
in the existing EU non-discrimination legisla tion. As with those directives, justified 
exceptions and limitations of sc ope would be allowed. Member States which already have 
extensive non-discrimination legislation would need to make only minor, if any, changes.  
A new Directive cannot tackle the problem shown by the table above that no Equality Body 
exists for certain types of disc rimination in certain fields, a nd in addition, the protection of 
people who suffer from discrimination on more than one ground is uncl ear. This could be 
achieved by replacing or amending the existing legislation. However, th at would bring legal 
uncertainty to economic operators and public  authorities who are now implementing the 
EN 6   EN legislation as well as overburde ning the EU and the national le gislative process and so this 
approach is not recommended. Rather, new legislation should be coupled with an 
encouragement from the Commission to Member St ates to act in these areas as well as the 
launch of a dialogue with the insurance and ba nking sectors about perc eived discrimination 
which could possibly lead to self-regulation.  
2. BACKGROUND AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT  
In 2004, five years after the Amsterdam Treaty came into force, the Commission issued a 
Green Paper4 to take stock of achievements in the area of non-discrimi nation policy and to 
gather input from a broad range of stakehol ders on the way ahead. In 2005 the Commission 
adopted a framework strategy on non-disc rimination and equal opportunities for all5 on the 
basis of the feedback received.  
The strategy established a set of priorities to strengthen  action against discrimination, 
including support for effective implementation of the existing legislation, such as through 
training for lawyers and judges; increasing gene ral awareness of legal rights, for example by 
designating 2007 as the European Y ear of Equal Opportunities for All; and assessing the need 
for further action to supplement the existing legal framework. 
On this last point, the Commi ssion acknowledged there was a str ong call for action to address 
differences in the level and scope of protec tion from discrimination on  the different grounds. 
While it concluded that the time was not yet ripe for proposing new legislation, the 
Commission undertook to carry out a study into the relevance and feasibility of new measures 
to supplement the current legal framework.  
That study6, completed in late 2006, looked both at ex isting national legisl ative measures in 
tackling discrimination outside employment and at  their impact. It showed that, on the one 
hand, most countries provide le gal protection in some form that goes beyond the current EC 
requirements in most of the areas examined, and on the other hand, there was a good deal of 
variety between countries as to the degree and nature of the protection. It also showed that 
very few countries carried out ex-ante impact  assessments on non-discrimination legislation. 
On the basis of that information and in line with its earlier commitment to the European 
Parliament, the Commission announced its inte ntion in the 2008 Annua l Policy Strategy to 
'propose new initiatives designed to prevent a nd combat discrimination outside the labour 
market based on gender, religi on, belief, disability, age or sexual orientation'. This was 
confirmed in the Commission's legislative work programme7 adopted on 23 October 2007, 
and a road map8 was prepared for this priority initiative9. The Parliament has repeatedly called 
on the Commission to present a proposal to co mplete the non-discrimination legislative 
package, most recently in May 200810.  
                                                 
4 COM (2004) 379 final 'Equality and non-discrimination in an Enlarged European Union'. 
5 COM (2005) 224 final. 
6 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/pubst/stud/mapstrand1_en.pdf  
7 COM(2007) 640 
8 http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/docs/clwp2008_roadmap_priority_initiatives.pdf   
9 Work Programme reference: 2008/EMPL/017. 
10 P6_TA(2008)0212 
EN 7   EN For its part, the Employment and Social Affa irs Council meeting in December 2007 adopted a 
resolution on the follow-up to the European Year and noted the calls from the Parliament and civil society to extend legal protection from discrimination to areas 
beyond employment and occupation; in this document, the Council of the European 
Union also invited Members States a nd the European Commission, in accordance 
with their respective competencies, to st rengthen efforts to prevent and combat 
discrimination based on sex, race  or ethnic origin, religion or  belief, disability, age or 
sexual orientation, inside a nd outside the labour market
11; 
At its February 2008 meeting, the Council12 invited the Commission to step up efforts to 
prevent and combat discrimination based on disa bility both on the labour market and outside 
it. It also called an examination of any gaps that may exist in the current Community legislative framework of protection against di scrimination, in partic ular on the grounds of 
disability, and for appropriate and ta rgeted responses to be considered. 
3. P
ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
3.1. Organisation and timing 
In preparing this initiative, the Employment, Social Affairs and Equa l Opportunities DG has 
sought to associate all stakeh olders with a potential intere st. Within the Commission, an 
Interservice Group was established13 following the February 2007 agreement within the 
Group of Commissioners on Fundamental Rights, Anti-Discrimination and Equal 
Opportunities to launch an impact assessment. Bilateral meetings were also held with the 
departments most closely concerned. 
With regard to external stakeholders, the Commission has combined targeted consultation 
with an open public consultation in line  with the timetable set out below. 
June 2007 Member States informed of public  consultation and invited to provide 
updated information on non-d iscrimination measures 
July/August: 2007 European Busin ess Test Panel consultation  
July/October 2007  Public on-line consultation 
July/October 2007  Consultation of NGOs and social partners 
October/December 2007 Consultation of Europ ean Network of Equality Bodies (Equinet) 
November/December 
2007 – February 2008  Consultation of specific sectors (insurance, tourism, hotels) 
In parallel, the European Y ear of Equal Opportunities fo r All provided many occasions 
throughout 2007 for the Commission to draw the atte ntion of a broad range of audiences in 
different Member States to the fact that th e Commission was considering new measures and 
                                                 
11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:308:0001:0005:EN:PDF 
12 Resolution of the Council of the European Union and the representatives of the governments of the 
Member States, meeting within the Council, on the situation of persons with disabilities in the European 
Union (2008/C 75/01), formally adopted on 17 March 2008 
13 SG, SJ, ECFIN, EAC, JLS, TREN, ESTAT, MARKT and SANCO. 
EN 8   EN was interested in their views.  In addition, the Commission held a conference at the European 
Parliament in October 2007 with a range of stakeholders on the implementation of existing non-discrimination laws and on evidence of di scrimination in access to goods and services 
and in education and social protection. 
3.2. External expertise and information gathering 
The study commissioned by the Commission in 2005, referred to above on existing national 
measures going beyond the EU requirements and th eir impact was received, in 2006. In June 
2007 the Commission wrote to the Member States to draw th eir attention to the study, 
announcing the public consultation, and asking them to provide further information on 
measures taken or planned to go beyond the 2000 Directives.  
To supplement that information, the Commission commissioned a further study
14in 2007 from 
the European Evaluation Policy Consortium. The result, entitled "Study  on discrimination on 
grounds of religion or belief, age, disability and sexual orientation outside of employment" 
(hereinafter "the EPEC study"), looks at the nature and extent of discrimination outside 
employment in the EU, and the potential (dir ect and indirect) cost s this may have for 
individuals and society. A nnex IV gives more details of the study, its methodology and 
findings.  
In addition, this Report takes account of the reports from the European Network of 
Independent Experts in the non-discriminati on field, and in particular their overview 
‘Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe‘15. It also takes into account a specific study 
prepared for the Commission on ’Tackling Multip le Discrimination: pr actices, policies and 
laws’16. Also relevant to this Report are the results of a special Eurobarometer survey carried 
out in February/March 2008 on discri mination and inequality in Europe17 and a more 
narrowly focussed Eurobarometer flash survey in February 200818. 
3.2.1.  Public consultation 
A public on-line consultation19ran from 4 July to 15 October 2007. There were 5378 
responses, four fifths coming from individuals  and the remainder from organisations. The 
main points to note are that: 
• 35% of respondents claimed to have suffered di scrimination in education, social protection 
or health care on grounds of age, disabili ty, religion or sexual orientation; and 20% 
claimed they had experienced discriminati on in access to goods, services or housing.  
                                                 
14 EPEC, Study on discrimination on grounds of religio n or belief, age, disability and sexual orientation 
outside of employment, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/org/imass_en.htm  
15 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/public/pubst_en.htm#leg  
16 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/pubst/stud/multdis_en.pdf  
17 Special Eurobarometer Survey 296on discrimination in the EU, to be published in July 2008 on the 
following web pages: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/public/pubst_en.htm  
and http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_en.htm  
18 Flash Eurobarometer 232; the full results are available online at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_232_en.pdf  
19 The full results of the consultation can be accessed at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/news/news_en.htm#rpc  
EN 9   EN • 69% said that the lack of uniform protecti on against discrimination would influence their 
decision to visit or work in another Member State. 
• 90% felt that everyone in the European Uni on should enjoy the same level of protection 
from discrimination on grounds of age, disabil ity, religion or belief and sexual orientation. 
• 91% of respondents agree that more money should be spent on eliminating physical 
obstacles which make the lives of t hose who have a disability difficult 
3.2.2.  Business sector consultation 
A representative cross-section of  the business sector was consulted from 11 July to 31 August 
2007 via the European Business Test Panel. 512 responses were received20.The main points to 
note are that: 
• 63% of those who answered thought it matter ed that there were different levels of 
protection between the Member States from di scrimination in access to goods, services and 
housing.  
• 26% thought a difference in the level of protection from disc rimination would affect their 
ability to do business in another Member State.  
• 89% thought the EU should legislate to guarant ee the same level of protection; and 69% 
did not believe such new rules would ha ve a financial impact on their firms. 
The Commission contacted the European-level organisations representing the business sectors 
which could be affected by the initiative, in pa rticular CEA (Comité européen d'assurance) for 
the insurance sector, the EBIC (European banki ng industry committee) for the banking sector, 
HOTREC (Confederation of nationa l hotel associations in th e EC and EEA), ECTAA (the 
European Travel Agents and Tour Operators Association), BITS (bureau international du 
tourism social) and ETAG (European travel and tourism action) for the tourism and hospitality sectors. The Commission also outline d the initiative to representatives of all 
Member States' finance ministries at the N ovember 2007 meeting of the European Insurance 
and Occupational Pensions Committee. A summar y of the views received from the specific 
sectors is given in Annex I. 
3.2.3.  Civil society organisations 
The main EU-level NGOs active in the field of  discrimination were consulted in writing, 
followed by a round-table meeting on 23 October 2007. In short, all the or ganisations were in 
favour of legislative action to supplement th e framework for protection under Article 13. 
There were different views on wh ether this should involve a si ngle directive or directives 
covering specific grounds. Most favoured a singl e directive, while the representatives of 
people with disabilities and of women advocated respectivel y a disability-specific directive 
and a gender-specific directive. A number of NGOs submitted their own draft directives. In parallel, the main EU-level NGO representing people with disabilitie s presented a petition 
calling for legislation signed by more than 1.3 million people.  
A summary of the NGOs' views is given in Anne x I, while their written submissions, which 
contained evidence of discrimi nation, are available online. 
                                                
 
20 The full results are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ebtp/consultations/2007_en.htm   
EN 10   EN 3.2.4.  Social partners 
Since the legal framework already prohibits discrimination on the labour market, any new 
proposal will have no impact on the social part ners in their employer/employee relationship 
and no effect on recruitment practices or labour costs. Nonetheless, it was decided to involve 
the social partners in the c onsultation, initially at a mee ting on 17 April 2007. At that and 
subsequent meetings, the busine ss organisations were encouraged  to consider any sectoral 
impact of a new initiative. A written consultation of the social partners was followed by a round-table meeting on 23 October 2007. 
The trade unions were in favour of a new di rective prohibiting discrimination outside the 
labour market on grounds of age, disability, re ligion or sexual orient ation, and pointed out 
that discrimination outside the labour market af fected their members' ability to work (owing 
to a lack of accessible transpor t for disabled workers, problems in finding housing close to 
work, unaffordable insurance for older workers etc.). 
The business representatives were against new legislation in principle, which they saw as 
increasing red tape and costs. BusinessEurope took the view that there is no evidence of 
discrimination on any of the grounds covered by Ar ticle 13 of the Treaty against which people 
have no legal protection. The public-s ector representa tives and UEAPME
21, however, 
acknowledged that there was discrimination in access to goods and services but did not think 
that binding legislation was necessar ily the best way to tackle it.  
A summary of the social partners ' views is given in Annex I and their written submissions are 
available on line. 
3.2.5.  Equality bodies  
Equinet22, the European network of specialised equa lity bodies, brings to gether the equality 
bodies of 24 Member States for the exchange of legal expertise, en forcement strategies, 
training and good practice. In response to the Commission's consultation,  Equinet provided an 
opinion in January 200823. As well as setting out the areas where they believe discrimination 
to be most widespread, they were in favour  of new legislation, which should require the 
Member States to promote equality and main stream equality positivel y in all policy-making, 
and to prohibit multiple discrimination explicitly. The Equality and Human Rights Commission of Great Britain also sent a separate submission, in  which they gave evidence of 
discrimination and explained why they were in favour of new legislation at European level. 
3.2.6.  Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board 
The Impact Assessment Board’s observations have been taken into account, notably 
by:  
• Providing more information on the scope a nd effect of the UN Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as 
part of the baseline scenario; 
                                                
 
21 Union Européenne de l'artisanat et des petites et moyennes entreprises 
22 http://www.equineteurope.org  
23 http://www.equineteurope.org/publications/2698.html  
EN 11   EN • More detailed presentation of the c oncept of ‘reasonable accommodation’, 
including more information on the costs, as well as practical examples, and 
information on mitigating factors; 
• Providing more information on the cross bo rder aspects of the problem, with 
examples; 
• Emphasising the added value of EU action by pointing to the positive effect of a 
coherent implementation of parts at le ast of the UN Convention, as well as the 
positive effect of the transposition of the previous directives in improving the level of protection against discrimination;  
• Making clearer the limits of EC competen ce and the areas that  a directive could 
not cover, such as the organisation and c ontent of education, questions of marital 
status and family law; 
• Making clearer the transposition aspect s of a new directive (concepts and 
deadlines) for the Member States; 
• Clarifying for each option the impact on the baseline scenario.  
4. P
ROBLEM DEFINITION  
Before looking in turn at the various types of  discrimination, the population affected, the legal 
context and foreseeable developments if no ne w action is taken, a word is needed on the 
availability of data in th e field of discrimination. 
Policies and practices in all areas  of life, including political, ad ministrative and business life, 
should be based on objective and reliable data . Data and statistics ar e also essential to 
individuals seeking redress, particularly  in the area of indirect discrimination24. Yet collecting 
data on certain grounds of discrimination (for example on grounds of race or ethnic origin, 
disability, religion or belief, and sexual orienta tion) remains an extremely sensitive issue, and 
is not undertaken systematica lly by the Member States. The Commission has taken a number 
of initiatives to address this problem, in particular by co-financing the MERA25 project led by 
the Finnish Ministry of Labour , which resulted in the drafti ng and publication in February 
2007 of a European handbook on equality data which seeks to improve the national compilation of equality data.
26 Similarly, although comprehensive information on the impact 
and cost of discrimination is not readily av ailable, the EPEC study carried out for the 
Commission made a first attempt to assess it. 
In the face of the lack of reliable data on di scrimination the decision was therefore taken to 
look not just at reported instances  of discrimination, but also at  perceptions of discrimination 
(see the above mentioned Eurobarometer su rveys that were co mmissioned in 2007 and 
conducted in early 2008).  
                                                 
24 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/pubst/stud/hb07_en.pdf   
25 Making Equality a Reality with Adequate Data 
26 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/public/pubst_en.htm#stud  
EN 12   EN 4.1. An outline of the problem  
The right to equal treatment is a general principle of Community  law, and Article 13 EC gives 
power to adopt measures to prevent and combat  discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic 
origin, religion or belief, disability, age or  sexual orientation in all areas within its 
competence.  
However, the existence of the Tr eaty article does not, in  itself, provide a basis for citizens to 
assert their right not to be s ubject to discrimination. Enacting le gislation is necessary to make 
those rights enforceable. While legislation banning discrimination does not automatically 
eliminate discrimination, it does provide the victims of discrimination with the possibility of redress and it discourages discriminatory be haviour. At present, legal protection from 
discrimination outside employ ment only covers sex and racial or ethnic origin. 
Unfortunately, discrimination on the other four  grounds persists. A major EU-wide survey 
carried out in early 2008
27 showed that many Europeans be lieved that discrimination was 
widespread, in particular on grounds of sexual orientation (51%) and disability (45%), age 
(42%) and religion (42%). In terms of ar eas beyond the labour market, a January 2008 
survey28 found that discrimination was perceived  to be most widespread in the housing area, 
but it was also significa nt in education on certa in grounds. As for serv ices, 40% felt people 
buying insurance policies were likely to face disc rimination because of their age and as many 
felt the same regarding disability. When as ked whether they or a family member had 
experienced  discrimination29, 16% of respondents said they ha d on grounds of their age, or a 
combination of factors, 14% because of di sability, 11% on grounds of religion and 8 % 
because of sexual orientation.  
Although some evidence exists on the extent of discrimination in the different Member States, 
as explained in section 9 belo w, caution must be ex ercised when looking at such figures. A 
large number of complaints can mean that there is  a lot of discrimination, or that the Member 
State in question has a well func tioning and user friendly complaints mechanism, or that 
people are more aware of their rights. It should  also be borne in mind that people complain 
more readily about some types of  discrimination than others. For example, the effect of losing 
a job is so great that people are much more lik ely to challenge a discriminatory dismissal in 
court than a case of discrimi nation in a shop or restaurant30.  
As the following sections explain, there is clear evidence of the existence of discrimination 
and its effects on the well-being and life chance s of the individuals concerned. These wider 
effects can be seen, for example, in the lowe r educational achievement and employment rates 
of people with disabilities and the rate of suicides a nd school drop-outs among young victims 
of homophobic bullying.  
                                                 
27 Special Eurobarometer Survey 296on discrimination in the EU, to be published in July 2008 on the 
following web pages: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/public/pubst_en.htm  
and http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_en.htm 
28 Flash Eurobarometer 232 ( http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_232_en.pdf ) 
29 Flash Eurobarometer 232 ( http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_232_en.pdf ) 
30 For example, the 2007 Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment on proposals to simplify and modernise 
discrimination law in the UK found that there wa s an annual average of  2000 employment cases 
alleging disability discrimination, co mpared to an estimated 10-20 in  the field of access to goods and 
services. 
EN 13   EN As a consequence, in addition to being contrary  to the fundamental values of the European 
Union, the persistence of disc rimination undermines the Union' s social cohesion and its 
economic interests. 
4.2. Nature and impact of discrimination 
4.2.1.  Discrimination based on disability 
An example : A user of a wheelchair was twice denied access to a nightclub. The first time the security 
guard informed him there were no more places in the club, whereas another person who had initially 
been together with the claimant was later on perm itted to enter without any obstacle. Two weeks later 
the claimant accompanied by a television crew again attempted to enter the club; this time the reason 
given for the refusal was that it was a private party  that night, but yet again another person was later 
permitted to enter freely.  
Source: Riga regional court, case No.04386004, C 20203.  
Directive 2000/78/EC does not define 'disability ' but the European Court of Justice did so 
partly in 200631. Depending on the definition of disability  used, the percentage of disabled 
persons in the total population has been  estimated at around 16% (covering physical 
limitations such as reduced mobility, sensory limitations such as hearing and seeing difficulties, and intellectual and mental-health impairments)
32. According to a Flash 
Eurobarometer survey conducte d in February 2008, 14 % of Europeans have or somebody 
from their closed-knit circle of family, frie nds, and acquaintances has personally experienced 
discrimination on the basis of disability33. 
As disability often occurs or increases with ag e, the current demographic trend will result in a 
higher percentage not only of older people in the population, but also of disabled people. The 
EPEC study estimates that average of 31% of  people over 65 in the EU is disabled. 
The same study found four main types of discri mination on grounds of disability: (1) lack of 
adaptations; (2) lack of capacity-building for staff in contact with disabled people; (3) lack of 
awareness; and (4) deliberate discrimination.  
According to the Special Eurobarometer surv ey on discrimination in the EU conducted in 
February/March 2008, 45% of EU citizens believe that discrimi nation against people with 
disabilities is very or fairly  widespread in their country34. When it comes to areas beyond the 
labour market, 40% of EU citizens believe that discrimination against people with disabilities 
is very or fairly widespread in the area of housing, 37% of respondents thi nk the same is true 
when buying insurance policies. 34% consider discrimination ag ainst people with disabilities 
to be widespread in educatio n; 31% think the same is true  about buying products or using 
services, and 15% share the same opinion about the health-care system35. 18% of those who 
replied to the public co nsultation claimed to have been di scriminated against on grounds of 
                                                 
31 Case C-13/05 Chacon Navas, para 43: "the concept of  "disability" must be understood as referring to a 
limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments and which 
hinders the participation of the person concerned in professional life" 
32 The EPEC study estimates, on the basis of Eurostat figures on the prevalence of longstanding health 
problems or disability, that the number of people a ffected is 84.4 million in EU-27, representing about 
17% of the total population. 
33 Flash Eurobarometer 232  
34 Special Eurobarometer Survey 296 on discrimination in the EU 
35 Flash EB 232  
EN 14   EN disability in access to goods and services, the figure being 20% for education, health care and 
social services.  
The submission from the European Disability Forum highlighted examples of discrimination 
in access to goods and services including tr ansport, information and communication 
technologies, mainstream educatio n, and care in the community.  
In its submission, Equinet36 reported that the discriminatory issues dealt with by national 
equality bodies on disability grounds include d access to and participation in educational 
establishments, access to health services, local authority services, soci al protection, rented 
accommodation, banking and financial services, insurance, shops, transport, goods and services, and stereotyping and access to decision-making. Comp laints alleging discrimination 
outside employment on grounds of  disability make up the largest share  of complaints 
received by Equality Bodies on the grounds cove red by this Report, representing on average 
9.2% of their workload. 
The impact of discrimination on the basis of disa bility is especially severe in the area of 
education . Member States have different approach es and policies regarding the issue of 
separate or integrated educa tion of children with disabilitie s, and Community law does not 
interfere with these choices. However, most countries alr eady favour the integration of 
students with disabilities into mainstream education, whether or  not they prohibit 
'discrimination' in this context, and most  countries make provision both for special and 
integrated education for students with disabi lities whether or not these are required by law
37. 
It is estimated that about 2%  of all pupils in Europe ar e educated in special schools38. 
People born with a disability tend to attain lowe r levels of education th an those who acquire a 
disability later in life, and people with disabilit ies participate less in education and have lower 
educational qualificatio ns than those without39. In the European Union, some 58% of disabled 
women had basic schooling only, compared with  38% of the non-disabled and only 10% of 
disabled women had tertiary-level educati on, compared with 21% of the non-disabled.  
While there is no evidence to attr ibute this discrepancy solely to discrimination, it seems very 
likely that discrimination plays a role. The cons equence of lower educational attainment is 
that disabled people will find it much more di fficult to reach their fu ll potential on the labour 
market. The employment rate of disabled people  (50%) remains below that for the rest of the 
population (65%)40. 
With respect to health care , disabled people often face health inequalities41 and may be less 
likely to be believed when they report their symptoms42. This seems to be especially the case 
for people with mental-health problems. The participation of persons with intellectual 
                                                 
36 European Network of Equality Bodies 
37 2006 'mapping ' study: see footnote 5 
38 European Agency of Special Needs Education 
39 COM (2007)738 Situation of Disabled People in the European Union. Annex 1. See also Study on men 
and women with disabilities in the EU: statistical analysis of the LFS ad hoc module and the EU-SILC 
Published 2007 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/index/7002_en.html  
40 Ibid  
41 http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en /publicationsandresources/Disability /Pages/Formalinvestigations.aspx  
42 Tackling attitudes of health care professional s towards disabled people (October 2005) 
Http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2005/810  
EN 15   EN disabilities in screening programmes for th e general population is reported as poor43. The 
EPEC study identified negative or biased attitudes of hea lth-care providers as a major 
problem. Complaints in the area of social services  concern difficulties in accessing 
information in appropriate formats, assumptio ns that disabled people are dependent and 
unable to operate independently, issues of degrading treatment for the mentally disabled and 
lack of integration with ot her social-service users.  
Transport  is an area where accessibility problems  for disabled persons and other persons 
with reduced mobility constitute a barrier to fu ll participation in the economy and society. The 
case for EU-level action in this area underlay the adoption of Regulations covering the access 
of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility to air44 and rail transport45. As many 
disabled people are unlikely to drive their ow n cars, they are more dependent on public 
transport than the non-disabled. The result s may be unemployment, welfare dependency, 
poverty, isolation and social exclusion. Res earch for the European Commission has shown 
that restrictions in mobility to and from work  have a greater effect on participation in the 
labour market than restrictions a ffecting the kind or amount of work46.  
The evidence points to a number of pr oblems facing the disabled when accessing goods and 
services . In the insurance field, complaints often alle ge that a person's disability plays a role 
when quotes are given for insurance,  even if it is totally irreleva nt (for example, disability is 
irrelevant to home-contents insu rance, but might be relevant for health-insurance purposes).  
Ordering goods and services over  the Internet can be very di fficult for people with certain 
disabilities, and a formal investigation by th e previous UK's Disab ility Rights Commission47 
found that 81% of Internet sites failed to meet the most basic accessibility needs of disabled 
people. A recent European study48 tested a similar sample of key public and 
sectoral/commercial websites in each Member St ate, and only a very sm all percentage were 
found to meet accepted internat ional accessibility standards.  An overview of the effects and 
impacts of discrimination on grounds of disabili ty is set out in the extract from the EPEC 
study in Annex IV. 
4.2.2.  Discrimination based on age 
An example : A leading retailer offers annual multi-trip in surance cover only to travellers up to the 
age of 70. For those aged 66 and over, there is a p remium loading of 100 per cent. In contrast, the 
premium loading for winter sports is 35 per cent. Fr ances, from Surrey, used to get family travel 
insurance cover for £50. She reported: ‘As soon as my husband turned 65 it went up to £130. From 
one day to the other he’s no less fit!’ 
Source: AGE – the European Older People’s Platform 
                                                 
43 2003 Manifesto Basic standards of health care for people with intellectual disabilities Erasmus 
Universitair Medisch Centrum Rotterdam 
44 Regulation (EEC) No 1107/2006 of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons 
with reduces mobility when travelling by air (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006) 
45 Regulation (EEC) No 1371/2007, of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations (OJ L 
315, 3.12.2007) 
46 Study on men and women with disabilities in the EU: statistical analysis of the LFS ad hoc module and 
the EU-SILC Published 2007 http://eCeuropa.eu/employment_social/index/7002_en.html  
47 See: 
http://www.equalityhumanrights.c om/Documents/DRC/Useful%20D ocuments/The%20Web_Access%2
0and%20inclusion%20for%20disabled%20people.pdf  
48 http://ec.europa.eu/information_s ociety/activities/einclusion/libra ry/studies/meac_study/index_en.htm  
EN 16   EN Discrimination on grounds of age affects younger and older age groups. 22% of the EU-27 
population were below 19 on 1 January 2006 and 21%  were 60 or over. The population of the 
European Union is ageing, and according to Eurostat projections, the share of the total population over 80 will rise from 4% of the total population in 2006 to 6% in 2025 and 11% 
in 2050. According to the Flash Eurobarometer survey conducted in February 2008, 16 % of Europeans have or somebody from their clos ed-knit circle of family, friends, and 
acquaintances has personally experienced discrimination on the basis of age
49. 
42% of respondents in the EU think that discri mination on the basis of age is widespread in 
their country50. When it comes to areas beyond the labour market, the percentage of EU 
citizens who think there is very or fairly widespread  discrimination based on age in the area of 
insurance policies is 40%; 31% think the same about th e housing area; 20% about buying 
products or services; 19% about using the health-care system and 17% about the educational 
system51.  
Age-Platform's submission highlighted examples of discrimination in access to insurance and 
financial services, and to health  care. They also drew attenti on to negative comments about 
older people in the media. The submission fr om the European Youth Forum highlighted 
stereotyping of young people and gave examples of age-based discrimination in education and 
health. 
Equinet reported discrimination in access to health services, social  protection provision, 
private rented accommodation, financial serv ices, insurance, goods and services and 
stereotyping and access to decision-making. 
In access to goods and services , complaints of discriminati on based on age are primarily 
concentrated in the insurance and financial serv ices area. Premiums for travel insurance are 
often very high for people over a certain age or  within certain age gr oups (over 65, 65-70), 
and one fifth of customers over 65 fail to fi nd any company prepared to sell them travel 
insurance52. 29% of attempts by people aged 75 to obtain insurance quotations were 
unsuccessful, compared with 3% of those in the 30-4953 age group. 31% of those aged 80 and 
over felt discriminated against when trying to obtain quotations for motor insurance, travel insurance and car hire, compared with 2% of those in the 30-49
54 age group. 
Age discrimination is also experienced in loan and mortgage services; for example, mortgages 
may not be available to persons under or over specific ages and persons above a certain age 
may be refused overdrafts, regardless  of their financial circumstances. 
Complaints about differences in treatment in social services  concern financing (seemingly 
less money spent on the elderly than on othe r age groups), difficu lties in accessing 
                                                 
49 Flash Eurobarometer 232 ( http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_232_en.pdf ) 
50 Special Eurobarometer Survey 296 on discrimination in the EU, to be published in July 2008 on the 
following web pages: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/public/pubst_en.htm  
and http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_en.htm 
51 Flash EB 232 ( http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_232_en.pdf ) 
52 Source: Association of British Insurers (ABI) re port on Insuring Older People (March 2007) and Age 
Concern England: Discrimination - Does it matter? (response to European Commission Consultation on 
equality and discrimination, September 2007)  
53 Source: Age Concern England: Discrimination - Does it matter? (response to European Commission 
Consultation on equality and discrimination, Se ptember 2007) 1843 persons were consulted. 
54 ibid 
EN 17   EN information about social services and the fact  that the limited mobility of older people may 
not be sufficiently taken into account (services difficult to get to). Health care  is a further 
area where allegations of discrimination based on age seem to be backed up by evidence, in particular in the area of mental health. There appears to be little development of targeted 
services for mental health and depression, perh aps because it is assumed that older people 
suffer from dementia alone. In addition, according to Age-Concern
55, women over 70 are not 
invited for breast-cancer screening, and there is age-based rationing (whether covert or open) 
of certain treatments.  
It is clear that health problems will have a ma jor impact on the individual concerned as well 
as on their immediate families, with diminished employment capacity and even the need for a 
full-time carer (often a female relative who gives up work) or privat e or public institutional 
care. The financial impacts on th e individuals and the State of  providing long-term care are 
significant. An overview of the effects and impacts of discrimi nation on grounds of age is set 
out in the extract from th e EPEC study in Annex IV 
4.2.3.  Discrimination based on sexual orientation 
An example : “When I went back she [the doctor] took out my file as such and written across the top of 
the page, in big, bold print, capital letters, was ‘LESBIAN’. So I didn’t feel very good about that … 
you don’t want to be la belled and put into a box and everything el se kind of irrelevant. This to me, to 
some degree, showed she didn’t really understand what it might be like coming in to see that”  
Source: Irish Equality Authority Report on 'Recognisi ng LGB Sexual Identities in Health Services' 
2008 
Sexual orientation is taken to cover homosexuality and bisexual ity. Estimating the percentage 
of homosexual or bisexual people in the overa ll population is especially  difficult for a variety 
of reasons and estimates range from 1.5% to 10 %. The EPEC study uses 3% as the basis for 
assessing costs. 
According to the Flash Eurobarometer survey  conducted in February 2008, on average 8% % 
of Europeans have or somebody from their closed-knit circle of  family, friends, and 
acquaintances has personally experienced disc rimination on the basis of sexual orientation56. 
51% of respondents in the EU think that discri mination on the basis of age is widespread in 
their country57. Outside the labour market, 31% of EU c itizens believe that there is very or 
fairly widespread  discrimination on grounds of sexual orie ntation in the hous ing area; 26% in 
the educational system; 22% when  buying products or se rvices; 14% in the health-care system 
and 13% when buying insurance policies58. 
The EPEC study reported that discrimination on  grounds of sexual orientation occurs in a 
number of areas, but its effects in educat ion and health may be especially severe. 
ILGA-Europe’s submission gave examples of di scrimination in these and other areas, in 
particular housing and access to services. 
                                                 
55 Source: Age Concern England: Discrimination - Does it matter? 
56 Flash Eurobarometer 232  
57 Special Eurobarometer Survey 296 on discrimination in the EU, to be published in July 2008 on the 
following web pages: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/public/pubst_en.htm  
and http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_en.htm  
58 Flash EB 232  
EN 18   EN Equinet’s members reported discrimination in  social-welfare provision, harassment in 
educational establishments, access to insurance and financial services, recognition for same-
sex partners and the consequences of non -recognition in areas such as accommodation, 
taxation and social-welfare provision, success ion rights and State-sector immigration 
functions. 
There is considerable evidence of discri mination on grounds of sexual orientation in schools , 
primarily involving homophobic bullyi ng. Under the current  directives, 'hara ssment' is a type 
of discrimination and is defined as conduct whic h has the purpose or effect of violating the 
dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or 
offensive environment. Bullying can therefore be  seen as discrimination, it being a form of 
harassment. A European-wide study found that 61.2% of young lesbian, gay or bisexual 
(LGB) people in Europe had e xperienced discrimination at school59. A UK study60 gave 
similar figures, and reported that seven out of  ten young gay people said that bullying affected 
their school work, and half ha d skipped school to avoid bu llying. A further UK study found 
that 82% of teachers were aware of verbal  homophobic bullying, and 26% were aware of 
physical homophobic bullying, and that these incidences lead  to absenteeism, limited 
achievement and a limited desire to stay on at school61. This may have a severe effect on the 
health and education of the indi viduals concerned, and may limit their future earning capacity.  
Discrimination on grounds of sexual orient ation is often experienced in access to housing . 
People are denied housing where th ey are perceived to be gay or  lesbian, even if they are 
not62. Close to two thirds of LGB people hide their sexual orientation from their neighbours 
and at least half do so even though they liv e with a same-sex partner. Amongst those 
respondents who openly admitted their sexual orientation, 30% had experienced problems 
connected with housing63. This discrimination induced people  to live where they might not 
choose to or to pay more for housing . 
Complaints in the social-services  area often seem to be related to questions of recognition of 
same-sex couples and/or non-typical families. Fo r example, it may be very difficult for older 
same-sex couples to live togeth er in residential care homes. 
In the health-care area, many LGB people fear stigma and prejudice from health-care 
providers64. The latter may treat LGB people in a degrading and demeaning manner that may 
even extend to the extreme of physical assaults65. One third of those who participated in the 
2006 investigation by the Swedish Institute for Public Health into homo- and bisexuals’ 
health indicated that they had been subject to discrimination in  the last 12 m onths owing to 
                                                 
59 2006 Europe-wide survey by ILGA-Europe in partnership with the International Gay and Lesbian 
Youth Organisation (IGLYO), corroborated by the "Homophobia in the Educational System” research 
project in Spain (2005) and the Observatório de Educação in Portugal. 
60 The School Report–the experiences of young gay people in Britain's schools, Stonewall 2007. 
61 Homophobia, sexual orientation and schools: a review and implications for action, Thomas Coram 
Research Unit, Institute of Educa tion, University of London 2004. 
62 Swedish Ombudsman on sexual orientation – http://www.homo.se. 
63 Source: Report on the situation of bisexual and homosexual persons in Poland 2005 and 2006 
(Campaign against Homophobia and Lambda Warsaw Association, 2007). 
64 2005 ILGA-Europe Study: accessing health: the context and challenges for LGBT people in central and 
eastern Europe, available at: http://www.ilga-europe.org/europe/publications . 
65 Röndahl, Gerd, Heteronormativity in a Nurs ing Context. Attitudes toward Homosexuality and 
Experiences of Lesbian and Gay Men, Uppsala universitet, 2005. 
EN 19   EN their sexual orientation66. Hesitancy in accessing health care  can lead to long-term health 
problems for LGB people, leading to loss of work ing capacity, as well as costs related to loss 
of earnings and reduced tax reve nue, increased State health-car e and social-security costs. 
Discrimination occurs in access to goods and services , for example where hotels refuse to 
give a room with a double bed to LGB coupl es. A Swedish study on how businesses treat 
homosexual and bisexual customers found that 50% of those who participated were doubtful 
about being treated well as cu stomers and 20% could give ex amples of having been badly 
treated as customers67. A Stockholm court recently decided that a decision by a dog-breeder 
who refused to sell a dog to a lesbian (because she did not think homosexuals could be trusted 
to treat dogs correctly) was unlawful68. 
When it comes to buying insurance policies, complaints from LGB people focus on their 
having to pay higher premiums because they are assumed to have higher health risks, rather 
than on the insurance companies' looking at i ndividual customers. In this connection, the 
Association of British Insurers produced a Stat ement of Best Practice on HIV and Insurance69, 
and does not support exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual 
orientation. An overview of the effects and impacts of  discrimination on gr ounds of disability 
is set out in the extract fro m the EPEC study in Annex IV 
4.2.4.  Discrimination based on religion or belief 
An example : A woman in France was refused a room in a hotel because she was wearing a headscarf: 
the equality body found the hotelier' s behaviour to be discriminatory.  
Source : http://www.halde.fr/IMG/alexandrie/2326.PDF 
Figures on religious affiliation are not consistent. According to the Association of Religion 
Data Archives, in 2003, 84% of th e EU population considered them selves Christian of various 
denominations, 1.7% Muslim and 0.2% Jewish. Ho wever, the European Union's Fundamental 
Rights Agency (FRA) estimates that 3.5% of  the EU population are Muslim, and that 
thefigure varies depending on the Member State in question70. According to a Eurobarometer 
survey of June 2005, 18% of EU citizens do not believe there is any sort of God or life 
force71. According to the Flash Eurobarometer survey conducted in February 2008, on 
average 11% of Europeans have or somebody from their closed-knit circle of family, friends, 
and acquaintances has personally experienced  discrimination on the basis of religion72. 
Assessing the nature and impact of discri mination on grounds of re ligion or belief is 
complicated. Discrimination based on religion pres ents two distinct problems: the first issue, 
which ENAR pointed out, is the potential link between discrimination on  grounds of ethnicity 
and religion, and the second is discriminati on based solely on religion or belief. The 
                                                 
66 Knöfel Magnusson, A:Det syns inte ut anpå men känns inuti.OM HETERONORMER OCH 
DISKRIMINERING I HÄLSO- OCH SJUKVÅRDEN (Artikelnummer 06-060, HomO 2006). 
67 Kristina Börjeson: Våningssäng på bröllopsresan - En kartläggning av hur bra svenska företag är på att 
bemöta homo- och bisexuella kunder (RFSL 2007). 
68 http://www.homo.se/o.o.i.s/3656 .  
69 http://www.abi.org.uk/Display/default.asp?Menu _ID=1140andMenu_All=1,946,1140andChild_ID=656   
70 For example, an estimated 10% of the popul ation of France and Bulgaria are Muslim. 
71 Eurobarometer 225 on "social values, science and technology". 
72 Flash Eurobarometer 232  
EN 20   EN delimitation of 'religion' and 'belief' may prove problematic73 where it is closely linked to 
ethnicity, either because a religious group is c onsidered to have an ethnic character, or 
because members of a religion belong pre dominantly to particular ethnic groups.  
These and other methodological issues caused EP EC to decide against identifying the effects 
on individuals and the costs to society. In stead they focused on identifying types of 
discrimination on the basis of religion or be lief where overlap with  ethnic or racial 
discrimination was minimal. 
Nonetheless, there is a wide public perception that discrimi nation on grounds of religion or 
belief is common. 42% of EU citi zens consider discrimination on grounds of relig ion or belief 
is widespread  in their country74. When it comes to areas beyond the labour market, a third of 
respondents in the EU believes the same to be true in th e education system (35%)and a 
quarter of respondents (27%) t hought that discrimination on grounds  of religion or belief was 
widespread when buying products  or services (e.g. when going shopping or to restaurants, 
discos, pubs etc). 14% thought the same was true of the health-c are system and 13% 
considered such discrimination very or fairly  widespread when it came to buying insurance 
policies75. 
According to the EPEC study, nearly 5% of comp laints lodged with national equality bodies 
concerned discrimination outside the employme nt sphere on grounds of religion. Equinet 
reported discrimination in acce ss to education, the State-sect or policing and immigration 
functions and stereotyping. 
In education,  for example, complaints have been made in many Member States about the 
exclusion of children from educational institu tions because they adhere to or practice a 
particular religi on. In the area of health,  discrimination may occur because health 
professionals lack knowledge about the way relig ious beliefs and associated behaviour have 
an impact on an individual's health. In housing, discrimination may take the form of a refusal 
to rent or sell, the imposition of extra conditions to secure housing, and the application of 
discriminatory criteria in th e allocation of social housing76. 
4.3. Legal context 
While law itself cannot stop discrimination o ccurring, it provides effective remedies for 
victims, and has a preventative effect. The EU  has the legal power to  act on discrimination 
under Article 13(1) of the EC Tr eaty. Under this article, unani mity in the Council is required, 
with the consultation of the Parliament. This  will not change under the Lisbon Treaty.  
Three Directives  have been adopted under Article 13(1) EC to pr ohibit discrimination on 
grounds of sex, racial or ethni c origin, religion or belief,  disability, age and sexual 
orientation77.  
                                                 
73 For example, in the UK some religious groups (Sikhs, Jews) are regarded as ethnic groups but others, 
such as Muslims, are not 
74 Special Eurobarometer Survey 296 on discrimination in the EU  
75 Flash EB 232 
76 See also 'European Islam: challe nges for Public Policy and Society' Centre for European Policy Studies, 
Brussels 2007, especially Chapter 6: Muslims and Discrimination' by Tufyal Choudhury 
77 Directives 2000/43/EC (racial or ethnic origin),  2000/78/EC (religion or belief, disability, age and 
sexual orientation in employment and occupation) and 2004/113/EC (sex, in the access to or supply of 
goods and services) 
EN 21   EN The Commission proposed the first two directives in 1999 to give practical effect to the new 
Article 13, following the entry into force of  the Amsterdam Treaty in May 1999. In an 
accompanying Communication78 the Commission explained th at the aim was to achieve 
maximum impact in the area of employment, where discrimination was very evident, and 
where it was very damaging to individuals' chances of success in society. The second proposal, on more extensive protection against di scrimination based on race or ethnic origin 
reflected the consensus among the Member Stat es to act beyond the employment sphere for 
race.  
As a result, race discrimination is the area wher e protection under EC law is greatest, covering 
not only employment but also social protecti on, education and access to goods and services, 
including accommodation, available to the public . There is no equivalent protection at EU 
level from discrimination on grounds of reli gion or belief, disab ility, age and sexual 
orientation other than in empl oyment. However some Member St ates have gone further than 
EC law in prohibiting discrimination on all grounds in all non-employment areas (see 
Annex III for more details) and some others have plans to do so. 
As to sex discrimination, the Article 13 legal framework in this area is not as comprehensive 
as for race. In the related impact assess ment in 2003 accompanying the Commission 
proposal,
79the Commission concluded that the evidence re lating to sex discrimination in fields 
such as education was less clear-cut. The Dir ective provides that the Commission will report 
on its implementation no later than Decembe r 2009 with, where appropriate, proposals to 
modify it. 
The transposition into national law of Direc tives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, dealing for the 
first time in EC law with discrimination on grounds of race, religion or belief, disability, age, 
and sexual orientation, has been very effective in improving the level of  legal protection from 
discrimination in a large number of Member St ates, many of which did not previously have 
comprehensive non-discrimination legislation.  
The Commission has had to take proceedings agains t some Member States to ensure that their 
national laws accurately reflect the content of the directives. But, as important as they are, the 
issues concerned are largely technical and do not put in doubt the effectiveness of the 
Directives. Indeed, the Commi ssion regularly receives evidence (from citizens, legal experts 
and equality bodies) which shows that national la w transposing those two EC directives has a 
positive, tangible effect in combating discrimination in the Member States. As these directives form part of the acquis , acceding countries were required to adapt their legislation and this 
had an impact on the development of non-di scrimination policies in many of the Member 
States which joined in 2004 and 2007 and th eir alignment with the EU approach.  
In addition to legal protection, EU-level action has resulted in greater assistance to victims 
through the establishment of ' equality bodies ': 20 Member States had no such body 
previously. Directive 2000/43/EC  requires the Member States to establish a body (or bodies) 
to promote equal treatment of all persons wi thout discrimination on grounds of racial or 
ethnic origin. An equivalent ob ligation, in terms of gender e quality, both in the employment 
sphere and beyond, is set out in Di rectives 2002/73/EC and 2004/113/EC.  
                                                
 
78 COM(1999)564 
79 SEC(2003) 1213 final.  
EN 22   EN These equality bodies have proved to be driv ers in combating and preventing discrimination, 
providing victims with a source of advice and help, and contributing greatly to awareness-
raising. They play a vital role in facilitating access to justice80. However, no such obligation 
to set up an equality body exists under Direct ive 2000/78/EC, so victims of discrimination in 
the labour market on grounds of ag e, disability, religion or be lief and sexual orientation may 
have no equality body to turn to. 
The EC legal framework is thus, inconsistent, both in the mate rial scope, and in terms of 
the mandate of equality bodies.   
The framework is not adapted, either, to deal with  multiple discrimination - that is, 
discrimination on more than one or a combin ation of the Article 13 EC grounds - is not 
explicitly prohibited under Eu ropean or national legislati on. Although it is now widely 
recognised as a serious problem81, little has been done so far to  lay down coherent rules or 
specific strategies to address it. The legal fr ameworks in the United States of America, 
Canada and Australia are more advanced in de aling with multiple discrimination, though three 
EU Member States82 have included specific provisions on ways of handling it in their national 
laws. In the absence of such provisions, legal counsel of victims of di scrimination must apply 
a pragmatic and tactical appro ach by picking the 'strongest' gr ounds, e.g. race or gender, even 
where the two are inextricably linked83. Dealing with discrimination on multiple grounds 
would be of special benefit to women, si nce most cases involve  a combination of 
discrimination based on gender and on other grounds. According to a Flash Eurobarometer 
survey conducted in February 200884, discrimination based on a combination of factors 
(religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orie ntation, gender, and race or ethnic origin) has 
been personally experienced by a relatively high  proportion of EU citizens.  At 16%, this is the 
second highest percentage  (following “age”) of the grounds for discrimination covered in the 
survey. In terms of specific areas outside the la bour market, over a thir d (36%) of EU citizens 
believe that multiple discrimination is very or fairly widespread in the area of housing.  
Beyond the EC Treaty, mention should be made of Article 21 of the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights which  provides that any discrimination based on any ground such as 
sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birt h, disability, age or 
sexual orientation shall be prohi bited. Furthermore, Article 26 st ates that the Union recognises 
and respects the right of persons  with disabilities to benefit fro m measures designed to ensure 
their independence, social and occupational integrati on and participation in the life of the 
community. As such, the EU Charter, and in particular its Article 21, does not provide the 
European Union the competence to enact legisla tion in its spheres of competence. Rather, its 
application is limited to the EU institutions when proposing and adopting acts but also to the 
Member States when enacting or implementing EU  law. However, despite some decisions of 
                                                
 
80 See report “Catalysts for Cha nge? Equality bodies according to Directive 2000/43/EC”, by Legal 
Experts’ Group available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/legnet/06catalyst_en.pdf  
81 See the Report referred to in footnote 15. See also Equinet opinion on European Commission Proposals 
for new initiatives designed to prevent and combat discrimination outside the Labour Market, January 
2008 
82 Austria, Germany and Romania. Spanish law does refer to multiple discrimination but does not give 
guidance on how to deal with cases. 
83 Cf Bahl v The Law Society, UK [2004]quoted ibid. 
84 Flash EB 232  
EN 23   EN the European Court of Justice or Tribunal of Fi rst Instance, for the tim e being the Charter has 
no legal force.  
Finally, the UN Convention on the Rights of  Persons with Disabilities  entered into force on 
3 May 2008 (See Annex V). This is the first hu man rights convention to which the European 
Community is a party and it has already b een signed by the Community and 26 Member 
States. The Convention adopts a broad definition of persons w ith disabilities and reaffirms 
that all persons with all types of disabilities must enjoy all human rights and fundamental 
freedoms. It clarifies and qualifies how all ca tegories of rights ap ply to persons with 
disabilities and identifies areas  where adaptations have to be made for persons with 
disabilities to effectively exercise their rights and areas where their right s have been violated, 
and where protection of right s must be reinforced.  
The Convention sets out the general principle of non-discrimination and equality whereby it 
obliges State parties to ’prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and effectiv e legal protection against discrimination on all 
grounds and to take all appropriate measures to ensure that reasonable accommodation is 
provided’ (Article 5). In a ddition, it poses the principl e of non-discrimination in the 
enjoyment of a number of human rights such as  right to employment (Article 27), right to 
education (Article 24), accessibility (Article 9) , liberty of movement (Article 18), right to 
health (Article 25), pa rticipation to cultural,  recreation, leisure and sport (Article 30).  
In accordance with the General obligations (Ar ticle 4 of the Convention), States parties 
undertake to adopt all appropriate legislative,  administrative and other measures for the 
implementation of the rights rec ognised in the Convention; to ta ke all appropriate measures, 
including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws , regulations, customs and practices 
that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities; and to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination on the basi s of disability by any person, organization or 
private enterprise. 
4.4. Likely development of the situation in the absence of EU action (baseline 
scenario) 
The way the situation is likel y to develop, all ot her things being equal and unless new 
initiatives are taken, is the subject of this section.  
The current EC directives  would continue to apply. Some but not all Member States would 
have detailed national legal pr ovisions protecting people w ho experience discrimination 
outside the labour market, others have much mo re general constitutional provisions. While 
new measures may be adopted at national le vel, experience based on the existing EC 
Directives shows that in the absence of an EU obligation, major increases in the level of 
protection against discrimination seem unlikely.  
The impact of the UN Convention  within the EU will largely depend on the pace and the 
comprehensiveness of Member State ratificat ion and implementation through the adoption of 
national law. It covers a broad a rray of themes relevant to the ri ghts and the quality of life of 
people with disabilities, some of which overlap  with areas covered by the EC Treaty (such as 
employment, education or health) while others cl early fall outside (such as family rights) As 
with other public intern ational law treaties, the Member Stat es choose how and when to ratify, 
and can put reservations on cer tain parts of the Conventi on when ratifying. While the 
principle of non-discrimination contained in the UN Convention is of immediate application, 
the economic, social and cultural rights set out  in the Convention are to be implemented 
EN 24   EN progressively depending on available resources.85 The UN Convention on the rights of 
persons with disabilities is part  of the baseline scenario, as the Member States will have to 
implement it whatever action is taken at EU level to tackle di scrimination based on disability. 
Member States would implement the UN Conv ention through adopting new legislation or 
amending existing national legislat ion. An EC Directive can ther efore be seen as a way of 
facilitating implementation of parts of the Convention.  
Discrimination is likely to continue unchecked and to result in the continuing social exclusion  
of groups at risk of discrimination, with no impact on such groups' under-achievement in 
education or reduced employment opportunities. 
If no action is taken at EU level, there will still be untapped potenti al for businesses to 
develop markets for services in other countries. Providers of goods and services  are faced 
with a complex mosaic of differing nationa l provisions on discrimination when operating 
across borders. 63% of the businesses consulted via the European Business Test Panel thought 
it mattered that there were different levels of  protection existing between the Member States 
from discrimination in access to goods, servi ces and housing, and 26% thought that a 
difference in the level of protection from disc rimination would affect their ability to do 
business in another Member State.  
Differing levels of protection fr om discrimination continue to  influence individuals' 
decisions  to make use of their rights of free movement, for inst ance to travel, work or study in 
another Member State. 69% of t hose who replied to th e public consultation sa id that differing 
levels of protection against discrimination woul d influence their decisions to go to another 
Member State. Examples, some based on the evidence submitted during the consultation exercise, and some more anecdotal, can be  found in a number of areas. Difficulties 
experienced by older people in ob taining travel insurance or car hire can make it increasingly 
difficult for them to go on holiday abroad. A blind person who travel s to another Member 
State and finds that taxis in the host State ar e not obliged to accept gu ide dogs, will have great 
difficulty getting to hi s/her destination..  
Should the Lisbon Treaty be ratified, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including Articles 
21 and 26, will be an integral part of the Trea ty and will be applicable not only to the 
institutions when proposing and adopting acts but also to  the Member States when 
implementing EU law (with the exception of  the United Kingdom and Poland). Yet, unlike 
Article 13 of the Treaty, the Charter of Fundame ntal Rights does not conf er a competence to 
the European Union to act to combat discri mination on the grounds mentioned in Article 21. 
Consequently, such a provision could only be in voked by citizens to the extent that the facts 
disputed entail an element of EU dimension. For example, citizens could invoke Article 21 
before a national court to contest any difference of treatment based on age, for example, in the 
access to a service in another Member State, to the extent that such service is provided by a 
public entity. This being said, Article 21 will not  protect citizens against discrimination in 
accessing goods and services provided by domestic private economic operators.  
The promotion of non-legal measures  to combat discrimination, su ch as raising awareness of 
discrimination and training and exchange of  good practice under the Progress programme, 
would continue
86. However, these are primarily linked to  the current EU legal framework, and 
                                                 
85 See Article 4 paragraph 2 
86 Total budget of €743.29 million for 2007-13, 23% of which is earmarked for non-discrimination and 
diversity. 
EN 25   EN while activities d ealing with discrimination outside th e labour market on grounds of age, 
disability, religion or belief or sexual orient ation could be funded, this might be of limited 
practical value in the absence of new rights. 
EN 26   EN Baseline scenario 
If no action is taken at EU level: 
(1) Differences will remain in the level of pr otection provided at EU and Member-State 
level from discrimination on grounds of age, disability, religion or  belief and sexual 
orientation, with some but not all of the Member Stat es' legal systems protecting 
individuals from discrimination in these ar eas and granting effective legal remedies. 
(2) As regards discrimination on grounds of disabi lity, these differences are likely to be 
exacerbated by the varying procedures an d pace of national processes for the 
ratification and implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities.  
(3) Discrimination against individuals on grounds of age, disability, religion or belief and 
sexual orientation will con tinue to occur, creating di stress for the individuals 
concerned and unnecessary costs and burdens  for individuals, businesses and society 
as a whole. 
(4) Differences in the Member States' legislation continue to inhibit cr oss-border mobility 
and the provision of services. 
(5) The Charter of Fundamental Rights will not  substantially increase the rights of 
individuals to chal lenge discrimination. 
(6) EU-funded non-discrimination meas ures will continue, such as awareness-raising and 
information campaigns to tackle prejudice and stereotyping . 
5. OBJECTIVES  
The evidence shows that people face discri mination on grounds of age, religion, sexual 
orientation and disabilities in a variety of non-employment contexts.  
As a consequence, the policy response needs to meet certain overall objectives : 
1. To increase protection from discrimina tion on grounds of age, disability, sexual 
orientation and religion or belief; 
2. To ensure legal certainty for economic operators and potential victims across the 
Member States in terms of the extent of protection against discrimination outside the 
labour market on grounds of age, disability, se xual orientation and religion or belief; 
3. To enhance social inclusion and promote the full participation of all groups in society 
and the economy. 
In order to meet these overall objectives,  specific objectives have been identified. 
Specific objectives 
1. Ensure effective remedies are available to victims of discrimination on grounds of 
age, disability, sexual orient ation and religion or belief; 
EN 27   EN 2. Ensure effective protection is provi ded from multiple discrimination; 
3. Ensure that national equality bodies can contribute to combating discrimination and 
providing effective assistance to victims of discrimination on grounds of age, 
disability, sexual orientati on and religion or belief; 
4. Ensure the public, service providers and other economic operators are informed of 
their rights and obliga tions regarding equality  and non-discrimination. 
These objectives are consistent with the horizontal objectives of the European Union, and in 
particular with the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs and the objecti ves of the EU Social 
Protection and Social Inclusion Process. They will help to further the fundamental rights of 
citizens, will reduce discrimination and will co ntribute to the functioning of the internal 
market by helping to increase mobility a nd cross-border trade in goods and services. 
6. POLICY OPTIONS  
This section outlines the policy options which have been considered for addressing the 
problems and meeting the objectives identified above. It screens the options and selects a 
number for further examination. 
6.1. No new action at EU level 
Not taking new EU action does not necessarily mean there is no change. The existing 
Directives lay down minimum pr escriptions, so the Member States are free to adopt or 
maintain provisions affording greater protecti on and some Member Stat es could, on their own 
initiative, step up the level of protection provided nationally. The UN Convention would be 
implemented. Activities currently  funded to combat discrimi nation and fight stereotypes 
would continue. 
6.2. Non-legally binding measures 
Under the circumstances describe d, a certain number of lega lly non-binding measures could 
be contemplated, either alone or in combina tion with legally binding measures, to step up 
protection from discrimination, increase awar eness of rights and obligations among the 
persons concerned, encourage th e exchange of good practice and lay down sector al guidelines 
and codes of conduct. Such measures could include the following: 
• Commission Recommendation 
The Council can adopt a recommendation only if the Treaty legal base ex pressly provides for 
this, which is not the case with Article 13 EC . The Commission however has a general power 
to issue recommendations under Article 211 EC. 
A general recommendation could be addressed to  the Member States to step up protection 
against discrimination outside the labour mark et on grounds of ag e, disability, sexual 
orientation and religion or beli ef, if necessary through new legi slation – bearing in mind that 
some of them already have comprehensive legi slation. The level of pr otection sought should 
be as extensive as that afforded in the cas e of discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic 
origin. The recommendation would request the Member States to prohibit multiple 
discrimination and provide a remedy for victims. It would also call for the mandate of all 
EN 28   EN national equality bodies to be broadened to cover discrimination on and outside the labour 
market on grounds of age, disability, se xual orientation and religion or belief. 
Should a Directive be proposed, it could be accompanied by a more limited and specific 
recommendation on multiple discrimination and on the powers of equality bodies beyond the 
scope of the proposed direc tive. This would avoid reope ning the existing Directives. 
• Self-regulation  
Self-regulation is defined as 'the creation of  common guidelines by economic operators and/ 
other stakeholders' in the Single Market Review87, which regards it as a valuable complement 
or alternative to legislation. As the Review poi nts out, measures set this way may be quicker 
to adopt and may lead to mo re acceptable results for stak eholders, who produce the rules 
themselves and may even use them as a 'marketi ng tool'. This could be an appropriate way to 
tackle discrimination in insurance and banking services and could lead to agreement on a code of conduct.  
• Stronger focus on non-discrimination under Op en Methods of Coordination (OMCs) 
The objective would be to exploit the full potential of existing OMCs, such as for the 
European Strategy for Growth an d Jobs or for social protectio n and social inclusion, rather 
than introducing a new specific OMC. The Memb er States would agree to identify common 
goals and promote their most effective policie s in the field of non-di scrimination, with the 
aim of learning from each others’ experiences . They would report annu ally on developments 
in eliminating discrimination on the various grounds and the Commission would comment on 
each Member State's progress.  
• Dissemination of information and exchange of good practice 
Different measures could be considered, such as setting up a committee of high-level national 
civil servants, to assist the Commission in monitoring national non-discrimination policies, to 
exchange good practice between the Member States and the Commission, and to report 
annually to the Council on pr ogress on non-discrimination, follo wing broad discussion with 
all stakeholders at the annual Equality Summit. In addition, networks such as Equinet could 
continue to be funded.  
• Awareness-raising and capacity-building 
Existing activities, su ch as awareness-rais ing, capacity-building for NGOs and combating 
stereotypes, could be extended beyond the scope of th e current Directives. For example, the 
training of judges, lawyers and NGOs could be  extended to cover non-discrimination outside 
employment. Such flanking measures ha ve accompanied the existing Directives. 
6.3. Legally binding measures 
In accordance with Article 249 EC, recommen dations have no binding force (and are 
therefore considered in Subsection 6.2 above) wh ile regulations, directives and decisions do. 
To date, all legal texts based on Article 13(1) EC are directiv es but that Article does not 
impose a specific type of legal act.  
                                                
 
87 http://ec.europa.eu/citizens_agenda/docs/sec_2007_1518_en.pdf  
EN 29   EN A decision , which is binding on those to whom it is  addressed, could also  be considered. A 
decision could address issues in  certain regulated sectors where it is possible to identify all 
operators, such as insuran ce and financial services. 
A regulation is binding in its entirety and directly a pplicable in all Member States, without 
any need for transposing legislation. The Member States must follow the exact text, so they cannot go beyond its minimum requirements. 
A directive sets down a minimum framework and give s the Member States flexibility in 
adapting the principles established to their domestic legal order.  
6.4. Preliminary screening of options  
The initial screening of the possible measures has taken account of subsidiarity (the Union 
does not take action unless it is more effective th an action taken at nationa l, regional or local 
level), proportionality (the extent of the actio n must be in keeping with the aim pursued), 
efficiency, effectiveness and c onsistency (with fundamental prin ciples and other Commission 
policies). 
6.4.1.  Legally non-binding measures 
Legally non-binding instrument s could be effective in increasing the level of protection 
against discrimination generally as well as in specific commercial sectors or areas. As the 
Single Market Review pointed out, better results can be achie ved by using non-binding tools 
as a supplement or alternative to legislation. 
As far as achieving the objectives set out in Section 5 is  concerned, an OMC  is based on 
mutual learning and is not a tool for ensuring equal treatment. By its very nature it, cannot 
guarantee a clear legal framew ork prohibiting discrimination.  Nonetheless, the EPEC study 
considers it a potentially useful tool for tackling certain problems, such as discrimination/bullying in education, and th is could be included in other Commission 
initiatives. The reporting obligati ons it entails mean it  will not be without administrative costs 
for the Member States and the Commission. In te rms of subsidiarity, it allows each Member 
State to prioritise action where it sees fit, but does not put in place any EU minimum level. 
Dissemination of information could be achieved through exch anges within a high-level  group 
of Member State representatives. This has al ready been used, for example in the area of 
disability, and can provide a useful tool fo r promoting equality collectively and working on 
policies, as opposed to creating individual rights. There is no guarantee that the level of 
protection from discrimination will increase, a nd certainly not in any coherent or uniform 
manner. In terms of subsidiarity, it does not a ffect decision-making. (It s hould be noted that in 
parallel to the proposal for a new Directive, the Commission has decided to establish of a non-
discrimination governmental expert group to st rengthen the exchange of information on non-
discrimination and equal opportunities.) 
Self-regulation  has been used successfully by the Commi ssion in a variety of areas in the past, 
for example through codes of conduct in taxa tion and banking. Self-regulation could be an 
effective way of achieving the objectives identified in a specific sector, such as insurance and banking services. As section 4 a bove shows, this is an area which attracts many complaints of 
discrimination. This approach should be give n further consideration, possibly in conjunction 
with a directive.  
EN 30   EN A general recommendation  would lay down a clear framewor k for the Member States on 
ways of stepping up protection from discrimi nation, for example by adopting new legislation, 
as well as covering multiple discrimination and the powers of equality bodies. A specific 
recommendation  could also cover multiple discrimina tion and the powers of equality bodies. 
A recommendation, whether general or specific, could be a good way to increase protection 
against discrimination either as an alternative to  new legislation, or in addition to it (to deal 
with points that would or could be difficult to  cover in legislation). This option should be 
given further consideration, both separately  and in conjunction with a directive. 
In conclusion , the best options for further analysis  among legally non-binding measures are a 
recommendation (general and/or specific)  and self regulation . These could be adopted in 
conjunction with a directive or  separately. Exchanges of information and good practice, and 
increased capacity building and awareness-raising will be stepped up in any event in the next phase of the EU's non-discrimination policy. 
6.4.2.  Legally binding measures 
A legally binding instrument creates a clear fr amework of rights and ob ligations, and is the 
only way to ensure all victims of discriminatio n in the EU have an enforceable remedy. It 
clearly increases the general level of protect ion from discrimination. Whilst it cannot, of 
itself, stop discrimination, it can have a preventa tive effect and creates  a clear, transparent 
framework. 
A decision prohibiting discrimination  would not achieve the above results because decisions 
are not of general application. A regulation would impose uniform obligations: using such a 
heavy instrument to achieve the objectives set would be disproportionate and contrary to the 
principle of subsidiarity. It would also create  unnecessary difficulties for Member States that 
already have legal protection going beyond the EC directives.  
As to directives , the working hypothesis is th at any new legislation: 
would build on the approach and concepts of the existing article 13 directives and notably 
2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, for examples the defi nitions of discrimination, the obligation to 
provide reasonable accommodation, as  well as procedural rules; 
would only prohibit discrimination in the areas th at fall within EC competence, so would not 
affect the organisation or content of educati on (e.g. special needs education), questions of 
marital status (e.g. same sex partnerships/marri ages) or family law (e .g. adoption) or national 
rules on the secular nature of the State or its institutions; 
would lay down minimum prescripti ons, so that Member States ar e free to adopt or maintain 
provisions affording greater protection and some Member States could, on their own 
initiative, step up the level of  protection provided nationally; 
would not affect national cons titutional provisions requiring equal treatment or prohibiting 
discrimination;  
would not deal with protection from sex discri mination. The deadline for the transposition of 
Council Directive 2004/113/EC has only just pa ssed and the Commission will report in 2010 
on its implementation and, if appropriate, prop ose modifications. The Commission will in any 
EN 31   EN event press ahead with its efforts to achieve  progress towards gender equality through the 
comprehensive programme set out in the Roadmap for Equality 2006-201088. 
Four different possibiliti es could be considered: 
• a series of directives , delineated by ground  
Specific directives, proposed either concur rently or consecutively, could allow the 
specificities of each type of discrimination to  be addressed. In terms of legal efficiency, 
however, such an approach is likely to place a burden on the decision-making process and produce an uneven outcome with re spect to the grounds covered. Ha ving a series of different 
instruments adopted at different times could make legal transposition complicated but on the other hand many of the concepts in each piece of legislation would be similar if not identical, 
as well as being based upon the existing Article 13 directives. 
• a series of directives , delineated by field  
• Specific directives could cover discrimination on a ll four grounds in spec ific fields, such as 
access to goods and services, social protection, education etc. Whilst this would allow the 
particularities of each area cove red to be taken into account, it  too implies a rather complex 
and cumbersome decision-making and transposition process. 
• a directive replacing and consolidati ng the existing Article 13 directives 
A new directive could replace and recast  the texts currently in force and extend the scope of 
protection from discrimination outside empl oyment on grounds of age, sexual orientation, 
disability and religion or belief.  This approach would have the advantage of legal clarity and 
would be in line with the better regulation age nda. It would also enable issues of multiple 
discrimination and the competence of equality bodies to be addressed. But re-opening a general discussion on the directiv es agreed relatively recently  runs the risk of creating 
unnecessary legal and political uncertainty. The current directives have already transposed 
into national law and the Commission is discus sing aspects of the transposition with some 
Member States. To withdraw, in effect, the current  texts and replace them with a directive that 
would not have to be transposed  for several years w ould leave a very uncl ear legal situation, 
for Member States, economic operators and ci tizens in the interim period. This therefore 
seems neither an advisable nor an effective approach. 
• a directive to supplement th e current legal framework 
The last possibility is a multi-ground directive  prohibiting discrimination outside employment 
on grounds of age, sexual orientat ion, disability and re ligion or belief. Such  a directive would 
address the main inconsistencies identified in the EC legal framework and would largely end 
the perception that there is a hierarchy of grounds. It could in clude common rules as well as 
specific provisions covering discrimination on different grounds or ce rtain parts of the 
material scope. It could make provision for extr a time for transposition of certain provisions 
in the case of discrimination on certain grounds th at are seen to be more difficult or more 
costly to tackle.  
Such a directive would be a first step towards tackling multiple discrimination and extending 
the powers of the equality bod ies, but a comprehensive approach would call for a limited 
                                                
 
88 COM(2006) 92 final. 
EN 32   EN revision of the existing directiv es. A more gradual way to deal  with these two issues could 
involve adopting a specific recommendation. 
In conclusion , a multiground directive  supplementing the current legal framework and 
prohibiting discrimination outsi de employment on grounds of  age, sexual orientation, 
disability and religion or belief  would be an effective way of increasing the level of protection 
against discrimination at EU level. However, individual directives  covering discrimination on 
specific grounds could also be considered, if a step-by-step approach is preferred. 
A directive could be combined with a specific recommendation  covering multiple 
discrimination and the powers of the equality  bodies, or a more general one covering 
discrimination on other grounds. These options s hould be selected for further analysis.  
7. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
After a preliminary screening of  possible policy options, six have been selected for further 
analysis: 
• no new action at EU level 
• self-regulation dealing with insu rance and/or banking services 
• a recommendation dealing specifically with th e competences of the equality bodies and 
multiple discrimination 
• a general recommendation 
• single ground directive(s) 
• a multi-ground directive 
Each option has been assessed for its economic, social and environmental impacts and on the 
extent to which it meets the objectives defi ned in Section 5 as we ll as to broader EU 
objectives and, finally, its cost-effectiveness and the impact on the baseline scenario. For the 
sake of simplicity and clarity, the options have  been analysed separa tely, but this does not 
mean they cannot or should not be used in combination. 
Regardless of the option(s) retained, the Pr ogress Programme, which will run until 2013, will 
continue to fund activities under the Commi ssion's non-discrimination policy. Relevant 
activities include training for NGOs, service-providers and networ ks (for example the Equinet 
network of the national equality bodies), and awareness-raising and combating stereotypes. 
This would be a good way to increase awarene ss of rights (among potential victims of 
discrimination) and of obligations (among serv ice-providers and sellers of goods) and should 
constitute a flanking measure, wh atever the approach is decided. 
Three observations apply to all options:  – Member States will in any event need to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities. This is likely to increase protection from discrimination on 
grounds of disability. Also, the costs linked to the obligation to provide  accessibility and 
EN 33   EN make reasonable accommodation, as explained under Option 5, will occur in any event in 
the implementation of the Convention.  
– As set out in Annex III, nearly all Member States have national legislation which goes 
beyond the existing non-discrimination framew ork at EU level to some degree. The 
majority of Member States wi ll therefore not need to impl ement major legislative changes 
to implement new rules at EU level. 
– No impact outside the EU has been identified under any of the options.  
Finally it is important to stress that it is difficult to provide reliable and comprehensive 
information on the costs of discrimination or of  the measures to combat it. The EPEC study 
gives figures on the possible costs to society if  discrimination results in lower educational 
attainment, lower employment rates, less taxes paid, greater health care costs etc. It also tries 
to assess the costs to individuals, for exampl e of lower wages, higher accommodation costs, 
higher transport costs etc. It should be bor ne in mind that other consequences of 
discrimination, such as stigmatisation, isolation and loss of self esteem, while impossible to 
quantify, can have a devastating eff ect on the individuals concerned.  
As to the costs associated with measures to co mbat discrimination, these are mainly related to 
disability-related discriminati on. Measures will need to be taken by Member States in any 
event in respect of the UN Convention and notably its provisions on reasonable 
accommodation. By definition reasonable accommodati on is subject to a te st that it does not 
represent a disproportiona te burden, and they cannot be meas ured in advance with any degree 
of accuracy. 
7.1. Option 1: No new action at EU level 
This option means that the current situation w ould continue to apply. The level of protection 
from discrimination outside the labour market would continue to be determined by national 
legislation in each Member State. In some Me mber States, legislation would develop and the 
current level of protection from discrimination co uld be increased. However, in the absence of 
an approach agreed at EU leve l, this cannot be guaranteed. Past  experience tells us that the 
current level of protection from discrimination in  most Member States has been the result of 
transposing the EC non-di scrimination directives. 
As to subsidiarity, this option leaves it to Member States whether to take any new action to 
protect people from discrimination outside th e labour market but it would not increase the 
level of protection from discrimination in a coherent way.  
Economic impact 
Three types of economic costs—to individuals,  to providers of goods and services, and to 
society—have been identified. Some of these co sts are quantifiable while others are very 
difficult to estimate. 
In terms of direct and indirect costs to individuals , the instances of discrimination outlined in 
the Section 4 and in Annex IV are likely to continue. For example, some consumers will not be able to benefit from the internal market as their ability to travel in Europe is reduced by 
difficulties in obtaining certain insurance products  (e.g. travel insurance and motor insurance 
for older people). 
EN 34   EN The EPEC study estimates that if LGB peopl e drop out of school  early because of 
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientatio n, this will reduce their earning capacity by 
14.3%, an annual loss of €452 million. EPEC estim ates that discrimination on grounds of 
sexual orientation in housing means that LGB pe ople pay on average 10% more than the rest 
of the population, amounting to €4.1 billion extra for the LGB community.  
Without knowing what sort of le gal obligations might apply to service providers  under 
national law, it is impossibl e to estimate economic costs.  If under national law a Member 
State required providers of goods and services to make reasonable ac commodation, this would 
impose a cost, as set out under Option 5 belo w. Correspondingly, increasing access to goods 
and services for groups currently discriminated against could have positive financial effects. 
In terms of the economic costs to society , the consequences of failing systematically to tackle 
discrimination that has been show n to exist in various  areas should be take n into account. For 
example, people will continue to leave sc hool early because of homophobic bullying, and 
disabled people will continue to have lower e ducational qualifications than their non-disabled 
fellows. Those who manage to enter the labour market find themselves in less qualified positions than if there were no discrimination. This has negative consequences on the individuals concerned and on so ciety as a whole and the fi nancial loss resulting from 
increased welfare dependency and lower tax revenue will continue. The EPEC study puts the 
loss in GDP due to the lower earning capacity of disabled people at €40.3 billion a year. 
Social impact  
This option would perpetuate the inability (or li mited ability) of certain persons or groups to 
participate fully in the labour market and so ciety, and would continue  to have a negative 
impact on the job quality of certain persons or groups, owing to their lower educational 
attainment as a result of discrimination. The ri sk of welfare dependenc y and social exclusion 
identified in the Section 4 would continue. 
No specific environmental impacts  have been identified although if public transport remains 
inaccessible for many people, they will continue to have recourse to private car use. 
EN 35   EN Assessment of Option 1: no new action at EU level  
Objective to be achieved/problem 
addressed Comments 
Increase protection  Uncertain. Protection might increase at Member State level, but no 
guarantee.  
Legal certainty  No. Current situation of varying le vels of protection would continue 
Enhance social inclusion  No though implementation of UN C onvention might enhance social 
inclusion of disabled people 
Effective remedies  for victims  Possible but uncertain. Improvements at national level are possible, 
particularly for victims of discrimination based on disability, but cannot be 
predicted  as the UN Convention does not gua rantee an effective redress 
mechanism. 
Protection against multiple discrimination  No. People discriminated against on two or more grounds in access to 
goods and services, for which the scope of  protection is different, would, as 
at present, have no explicit remedy under EC law  
Extension of Equality Bodies' competence  Unlikely. Member States may individua lly decide such an extension, in 
particular under Article 33.2 of th e UN Convention on Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities, but no guarantee. 
Information on rights and obligations  Likely not to be enough. Existing awar eness-raising and training activities 
could increase knowledge, but there would be no new legal duties to 
increase awareness of equality legislation. In the case of disability rights the 
UN Convention addresses the obligat ion to provide information. 
Consistency with EU's general objectives  No additional positive contribution to objectives of Partnership for Growth 
and Jobs, free movement of persons  and cross-border trade is not 
stimulated, and no additional pr otection of fundamental rights 
Cost effectiveness Low. Victims of discrimination and indirectly the whole society would 
suffer an economic loss. Economic opera tors in general would not have 
extra costs, but certain market opportunities could be lost. 
Impact on the baseline scenario No change 
7.2. Option 2: Self–regulation 
Self-regulation, e.g. in the form of codes of conduc t, can be an effective way to address issues 
of discrimination in a particular sector. It ma y be used, separately or in combination with 
legislation, to target very specific issues for which the general nature of legislation is not 
always suitable. This approach is not appropriat e for all sectors but it could be relevant in the 
area of insurance and banking services, sectors which are already highly regulated, and where 
it is possible to identify the main economic oper ators involved. As noted earlier, there is a 
widespread perception that provide rs of these services use factors such as age to determine the 
nature and price of a service even when it is not relevant. 
In some Member States, codes of conduct alre ady exist this area: in  the Netherlands, for 
example, the Bankers' Association have adop ted an "Integrity Co de" which prohibits 
discrimination89 and in the UK the British Association of  Insurance has established an Older 
Customers Task Force as well as adopting th e Statement of Good Practice on HIV mentioned 
in Subjection 4.2.3.  
Thus, as these industries already have experien ce of codes of conduct, and it is an area in 
which there are a high number of complaints, se lf-regulation could be an  appropriate means to 
encourage sectors to improve protection from discrimination while enabling the specificities 
                                                 
89 See for example: 
http://www.rabobank.com/content/about_us/corporate_social_responsibility/vision_and_mission/Codes
_and_guidelines.jsp  
EN 36   EN of the sector to be taken into account. In pa rticular, a mechanism could be introduced to 
confirm that age (and disability where appropriate)  to be used as a factor in determining risk 
where it can be shown that age (or disability) really does increase risk and is not being used 
simply as a proxy. 
The Single Market Review90 encourages the use of non-legisl ative measures but notes that 
there are potential drawbacks that must be managed, in particular the risk of anti-competitive collusion amongst industry members to the detrimen t of consumers, as well as the risk of non-
respect. To overcome these drawbacks, all stake holders should be invo lved in drawing up the 
rules and monitoring and enforcement mechanisms should be included. 
The effectiveness of this tool depends on th e degree of consensus am ong those operating in 
the sector in question. It calls for those most affected to be involved in drawing up the text 
and means that measures adapte d to the sector are adopted.  
In terms of subsidiarity, this option provides for decision-making at th e level of the sector 
concerned. This is important, in particular for areas that are both technically complex and 
rapidly changing, such as insurance. In term s of proportionality, a code of conduct does not 
go further than necessary and can effectively achie ve results in specific areas. However, there 
is a risk of incomplete sectoral and/or geographical coverage. In addition, the highly targeted nature of self-regulation means it would ha ve an impact only on certain types of 
discrimination. 
Economic impact 
For providers of goods and services,  a code of conduct would have costs linked to its 
implementation. However, the costs of adopt ing a code of conduct for the banking and 
insurance sectors, for example, could be lim ited by an exception allowing age and disability 
to be taken into account where this is stri ctly relevant to th e risk in question.  
There would be benefits : individuals  would be able to obtain insurance or banking products 
which they were not able to previously, or at  a lower price, since costs of insurance and 
banking products should more accurately reflect th e risk individuals repr esent. Although it is 
difficult to quantify the economic effect this would ha ve for consumers, increasing protection 
from discrimination in specific sectors woul d clearly benefit consumers. For example, 
according to the EPEC study, 38 mill ion older people cannot currently  obtain travel insurance. 
Social impact 
Self-regulation should have the effect of incr easing access to insurance and other financial 
services for people who may have  experienced difficulty in the past owing to discriminatory 
practices. For example, motor insurance could be easier to obtain and would have a direct 
effect on the ability of the individual concerne d to participate in economic and social life. 
No specific environmental impacts  have been identified.  
                                                
 
90 COM 2007) 724 
EN 37   EN Assessment of Option 2 – Self-regulation  
Objective to be achieved/problem 
addressed Comments 
Increase protection  Protection against discrimination would increase in field(s) covered by a 
code of conduct. 
Legal certainty  No. Code of conduct would set in place  an approach applying to whole 
sector across EU but is does not alter varying levels of general protection 
from discrimination in gene ral among Member States. 
Enhance social inclusion  Possible but partial. By reducing disc rimination in a specific sector, a 
code of conduct could help some people participate more fully in 
economic and social life. 
Effective remedies  for victims  Uncertain. In the sector(s) covered by  a code of conduct, an enforcement 
mechanism should provide remedies for individuals, but difficult to say 
how effective it would be. In general,  improvements at national level are 
possible, but cannot be predicted. 
Protection against multiple discrimination No. People discriminated against on two or more grounds in access to 
goods and services, for which scope of protection is different, would, as 
at present, have no explic it remedy under EU law. 
Extension of Equality Bodies' competence No. 
Information on rights and obligations  Partial. Information on code of c onduct would have to be disseminated 
by sector involved, the Member State and Commission. Existing 
awareness-raising and training activ ities could increase knowledge of 
existing rights. 
Consistency with EU's  general objectives Yes, but partial. In sectors concerned, there could be a positive 
contribution to objectives of Partne rship for Growth and Jobs, with 
encouragement of mobility and cross-bor der trade in services concerned. 
No additional protection of fundamental rights. 
Cost – effectiveness  Depends on degree of consensus of ec onomic operators and stakeholders 
but potentially high for the sectors/grounds concerned.  
Impact on the baseline scenario Positive for item 1 (level of protection)  
7.3. Option 3: Specific Commission recommendation  
A recommendation would supplement a directive a nd could be used to address the two limited 
points, multiple discrimination and the powers of  equality bodies, which would be difficult to 
tackle fully in a directive. It would call on th e Member States to ensure that protection from 
multiple discrimination also extended to situatio ns covered by the existing directives adopted 
under Article 13(1) EC91. It would also ask the Member St ates to extend the powers of their 
equality bodies, so they could offer assistance to victims of discrimi nation on grounds of age, 
disability, sexual orientation a nd religion or belief where this  is not already the case.  
If protection from multiple di scrimination were improved unde r national law, people would 
have a remedy they did not previously enjoy. In addition, extending th e powers of equality 
bodies would give individuals gr eater access to advice and help with cases of discrimination. 
A higher level of protection, and of access to ju stice, would ensue. It would also give 
economic operators as source of informa tion and guidance on their obligations. 
If the recommendation were limited to these two issues, it would be hi ghly focused but still 
leave the detail to the Member States, so th ey could take suitable  targeted action. This 
complies with the requirements of subsidiarity and makes a specific recommendation a proportionate instrument to accompany a directive.  In addition, it is less burdensome than re-
opening the existing directives, as referred to in Subsection 6.4. But, on its own, this option 
                                                
 
91 Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC & 2004/113/EC  
EN 38   EN does not go very far towards addressing the ove rall problem of the different levels of 
protection from discrimination. 
Economic impact  
A recommendation dealing specifically with multiple discrimination and the powers of 
equality bodies in the Member States would have minimal economic impact on providers of 
goods and services, but Member States might fa ce costs relating to the possible extension of 
the powers of equality bodies. This depends, howe ver, on the specific action taken to increase 
the powers of equality bodies and on the mandate of existing equality bodies, so it cannot be 
calculated but is likely to be marginal. . 
Social impact 
Extending protection from multiple discrimina tion should improve the situation for people 
discriminated against on multiple grounds, who should therefore find they have better access 
to, say, education and health care, which should in crease their ability to participate actively in 
society and avoid becoming a burden in welfare terms. 
Extending the powers of equality bodies to deal with discrimination, both in the labour market 
and outside, on grounds of age, disability, se xual orientation and religion would have a 
positive effect in terms of combating and preven ting discrimination as well as improving such 
bodies' efficiency and effectiveness. They would be able to deal with workplace 
discrimination on grounds of age, disability, se xual orientation and religion or belief, which 
could have a positive effect on labour retention92. 
No specific environmental impacts  have been identified. 
                                                 
92 According to a study by Lloyds TSB in the UK, the costs of maintaining in post a disabled manager are 
far less than the costs related to dismissing the person and hiring someone new. According to the Social 
Market Foundation in the UK, improving the employability of disabled workers would be worth £13 
billion to the British economy. 
EN 39   EN Assessment of Option 3 - Specific Commission recommendation  
Objective to be achieved/problem addressed Comments 
Increase protection  Possible but uncertain. To the extent that Member States prohibited 
multiple discrimination, protection against discrimination would be 
increased. 
Legal certainty  Partly. This option would encourage but not guarantee a levelling up of 
protection against multiple discrimination, and could contribute to close 
gaps in EC legal framework. 
Enhance social inclusion  Yes, possible but uncertain. In prohibiting multiple discrimination, 
social exclusion should be reduced.  
Effective remedies  for victims  Possible. To the extent that Member States prohibit multiple 
discrimination and widen remits of  their equality bodies, effective 
remedies would be ensured  
Protection against multiple discrimination Possible. Recommendation would sp ecifically encourage protection 
against multiple discrimination on all grounds. 
Extension of Equality Bodies' competence Possible, but would depend on Member States' follow up. 
Information on rights and obligations  Possible. Member States could be encouraged to disseminate 
information on new rights to protection from multiple discrimination 
and on new powers of equality bodies. 
Consistency with EU's general objectives  Limited. May lead to additional protection of fundamental rights. 
Cost -effectiveness Some costs related to extending the remits of the equality bodies, 
depending on Member State follow up 
Impact on baseline scenario Positive for item 1 (level of protection) but not assured 
7.4. Option 4: General Commission recommendation 
In this option, the Commission would recommend Member States to ensure that there is 
adequate legal protection/remedy for victims of discrimination outside the labour market on 
the grounds of age, sexual orientation and re ligion. It would also recommend that they 
provide effective protection against multiple di scrimination, and ensure that their existing 
equality bodies are empowered  to help all victims of di scrimination on Article 13 EC 
grounds. For those Member States which al ready plan changes to their current non-
discrimination laws, the contents of the recommendation would provide them with a 
benchmark against which to assess their proposals. 
In terms of subsidiarity, a Commission reco mmendation at EU level backed up by Council 
conclusions would show that there is an agreed approach to protecting people from 
discrimination across the Member States while leav ing it to the Member States to decide the 
details and the pace of the adjustments.  
It is difficult to assess the effectiveness as it cannot be known to what extent or over what 
timescale the Member States would give effect to the goals set out in the recommendation. If 
the take-up was low, there would be very litt le increase in the leve l of protection against 
discrimination on grounds of age, sexual orient ation and religion outside the labour market. 
Despite being limited by its non-binding natu re, a general recommendation could be 
considered a proportionate instru ment for achieving the objectives  set, especia lly if Member 
States implemented the recommendation correctly and in a timely way. 
If a single ground directive were adopted, then  a general recommendation would be a way to 
encourage an increase the level of protecti on against discrimination on the other grounds, in 
the absence of a consensus on bindi ng Community wide measures.  
Economic impact  
EN 40   EN The economic impact of a general recommendation is difficult to assess in  advance as neither 
the extent to which it will be implemented nor the timescale for implementation can be predicted accurately. Any compliance costs, such  as initial spending on training staff, for 
example, would probably decline over time as non- discriminatory practices become routine. 
These costs would in any event be marginal sin ce it can be expected th at organisations would 
already have taken steps to ensure that their st aff are trained in non-discriminatory practices in 
line with the current EU legal framework.  
The extension of the scope of the equality bodies  would have a cost, in those Member States 
where the bodies do not already have a broad scope, but the cost would be marginal since 
these bodies already exist. Where such bodies  have the powers to mediate solutions to 
allegations of discrimination, they will reduce the costs for victims and economic operators of 
seeking redress through the courts.  
Social impacts 
Like its economic impact, the social impact of  a general recommendation is difficult to assess 
effectively. Implementing the recommendation woul d have a beneficial impact upon the level 
of protection from discriminati on, but this would vary in each Member State, depending on 
which areas or actions were prioritised and to what exte nt they were complied with. 
No specific environmental impacts  have been identif ied although if public transport remains 
inaccessible for many people, they will continue to have recourse to private car use. 
Assessment of Option 4 – General Commission recommendation
 
Objective to be achieved/problem 
addressed Comments 
Increase protection   Could lead to increased legal protec tion at national level, but difficult to 
predict;  
Legal certainty  Recommendation could improve current situation of varying levels of 
protection from discrimination among the Member States, but would 
depend on Member States follow-up. 
Enhance social inclusion  Uncertain. Depends on Member States' follow up. 
Effective remedies  Possible but uncertain. Improvements at  national level are possible, but 
cannot be predicted  
Protection against multiple discrimination Depends. If Member States effectively prohibited multiple discrimination, 
there could be positive impact, but no certainty. 
Extension of Equality Bodies' competence  Depends on Member States follow up, no guarantee. 
Information on rights and obligations  Member States would be responsible  for dissemination of information on 
action taken to implement recommenda tion; existing EU awareness-raising 
and training activities could incr ease knowledge of existing rights 
Consistency with EU's general objectives  Possible positive contribution to objectives of Partnership for Growth and 
Jobs, but free movement of persons and cross-border trade may not be 
stimulated. May lead to additional protection of fundamental rights. 
Cost – effectiveness  Likely low. It would depend on each Member State's follow-up. 
Impact on baseline scenario Potentially positive on items 1,2, 3, 4 and 5 but not assured 
7.5. Option 5: Single-ground directive  
Completing the legal framework at EU level and ensuring protection from discrimination on 
grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief could be achieved by 
adopting individual directives on discrimination on  specific grounds as part of a more gradual 
approach to addressing the inconsis tencies in the legal framework.  
EN 41   EN If it were decided to present only one ground specifi c directive at this stage, there are reasons 
to justify choosing disability: th e population at risk is around 16%  and this will increase as the 
population ages. Complaints al leging disability discrimination make up over 9% of all 
complaints to equality bodies (a higher percentage than fo r discrimination based on age, 
religion or belief and sexual orientation93). Disability discrimination is  the area where there is 
most information available on the impact and co sts of implementing legislation. Lastly the 
conclusions of the February 2008 Employment a nd Social Affairs Council meeting invited the 
Commission to step up efforts to preven t and combat disability discrimination94.  
It should also be recalled that the UN Convent ion on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
will need in any event to be concluded and implemented by the EC and the Member States. 
Although there is no ob ligation to use EC-level legislat ion to implement the rights and 
obligations arising from the UN Convention, this would be a logi cal step, and this coordinated 
approach was confirmed in the disabi lity Ministerial meeting of May 200895. Through 
transposing an EC directive pr ohibiting disability the Member States would implement those 
parts of the Convention which are included in the directive, such as the prohibition of 
discrimination in access to goods and services , health care, education, as well as the 
obligation to provide reasonable accommodati on. Such partial implementation of the UN 
Convention by EC legislation could help mitigate the risk of divergent national 
implementation measures (see Section 4.4 above).  
These reasons, especially the need to impl ement the UN Convention, explain why disability 
could be chosen for a single ground directiv e. Equivalent reasons do not exist for 
discrimination based on age, religion and belie f, and this Option therefore only explores a 
disability specific directive. 
A directive would set out specific rights and oblig ations, with a timetable for implementation, 
thus offering more certainty to disabled peop le and providers of goods and services. It would 
also provide scope for more effective legal re dress for victims of discrimination. Prohibiting 
discrimination is usually a question of halting certain types of behavi our. However, tackling 
disability discrimination is different  because it calls for positive steps to be taken to 
accommodate the needs of the disabled person. Such an obligation can consist of adapting the environment in order to achieve  equal treatment to the extent  that this does not create a 
disproportionate burden. A specifi c directive on disability c ould address the obligation to 
improve access and to make reasonable accomm odation. As with the existing directives, 
positive action would be permitted, allowing the Member States, in accordance with their 
laws and practices, to pursue policie s based on preferential treatment. 
A ground-specific directive would re spect the principles of subsid iarity (there is a case for 
European-level action on discrimination, as this  report shows and alread y established with the 
adoption of three Article 13 directives) and of proportionality (a direc tive leaves the widest 
latitude to the Member States). Member Stat es which already have detailed legal protection 
against discrimination on grounds of disability outside the labour market would not need to 
                                                
 
93 EPEC, Study on discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, age, disability and sexual orientation 
outside of employment, Annex, p. 49. 
94 Resolution of the Council of the European Union and the representatives of the governments of the 
Member States, meeting within the Council, on the situation of persons with disabilities in the European 
Union (2008/C 75/01), formally adopted on 17 March 2008 
95 http://www.mddsz.gov.si/fileadmin/ mddsz.gov.si/pageuploa ds/dokumenti__pdf/ns_invalidi_sklepi_220508_en.pdf  
EN 42   EN make major changes to their legislation, and many  of the concepts would be identical to those 
in the existing Article 13 directives. 
Improving access and reasonable accommodation  
As pointed out above, positive steps may be required to ensure disabled people have access to 
goods and services on an equal footing with th e non-disabled. This ma y be achieved in two 
complementary ways. A provider of goods and se rvices could take m easures to improve 
access, such as better access for wheelchairs, better website de sign for the visually impaired, 
access for guide dogs, etc. As far as possible they should be taken in advance. However, a directive would not addre ss the specific solutions. 
Reasonable accommodation measures may be needed for a particular person with disabilities 
in order to allow them access to goods or serv ices. These are measures needed in individual 
cases to allow the disabled person equal and effective access to the goods or services. The 
requirement to make reasonable accommodati on may imply not only physical changes but 
also an alternative means  of providing a service.  For example, a restaurant could decide to 
produce its menus in Braille or its staff could read the menu to blind people. Likewise, a 
company that sells solely over the Internet co uld take steps to adap t its website for people 
with visual impairments, or could provide an alternative servic e by telephone. Another 
example of reasonable accommodation may entail pricing adjustments: for instance, where 
the only wheelchair accessible part of a musi c venue is at the front by the stage the 
management could make reasonable accommodati on by offering tickets to wheel chair users 
at the normal price rather than  a premium rate instead of phys ically altering the premises. 
The concept of reasonable accommodation already exists in the employment sphere under 
Directive 2000/78/EC, and Member States and bu sinesses therefore have practical experience 
in applying it under national law.  Many, though not all,  service providers are also employers, 
and will therefore have direct practical experience of implementing the concept of reasonable accommodation. 
Non-discrimination and specific sectors 
Applying the principle of  non-discrimination to education would not mean that all disabled 
pupils had to be taught in mainstream schools:  the Member States alone are competent to 
organise their education systems. In the transport  field service provid ers would have to 
consider measures of accessibi lity and reasonable accommodation, but this would be subject 
to the disproportionate burde n test. Where specific EC instruments dealing with 
discrimination exist in a particular sector, for example those dealing with the rights of 
disabled persons when travelling by air
96 or rail97, the parts of those instruments dealing with 
accessibility would take precedence ove r a new Article 13 directive. 
For insurance and banking services , a directive would confirm that  disability could continue 
to be taken into account in determining risk wher e a specific disability is  a determining factor 
in assessing the risk for specific products, such as private health insu rance, life insurance, 
certain types of accident insurance and mortga ges, provided the determining nature of the 
criterion was proven, on the basis of accurate and up-to-date data.  
                                                 
96 Regulation (EEC) No 1107/2006. 
97 Regulation (EEC) No 1371/2007, adopted on 3 December 2007. 
EN 43   EN This could mean that some complaints of disc riminatory practice woul d in fact be found not 
to be unlawful: the aim is to ensure that decision s are made in relation to the specific customer 
and that disability is not us ed as a blanket justification for charging higher rates.  
For example, a person with diabetes could be charged more health insurance if the company 
showed statistically that diabetics needed more  frequent medical attent ion than other people. 
On the other hand, a case dealt with by the H ungarian Equal Treatment Authority illustrates 
what would not be acceptable; a blind client a pplying to his bank for a loan was categorised as 
a high-risk customer, which meant he had to sign a special paper before a notary. The Equal 
Treatment Authority found that there was no reason why a blind person should present a 
higher risk, and the bank agr eed to stop the practice.  
It should be noted that the concep t of relevant risk factor is no t new: it was used in Directive 
2004/113/EC on equal treatment between men a nd women in access to  goods and services, 
which was to be transposed into national law by the end of 200798.  
Economic impact  
As noted at earlier, since by de finition reasonable accommodation is  subject to a test that it 
does not represent a disproportionate burden, then  the costs of associating it can be assumed 
to be disproportionate – but they  cannot be measured in advance with any degree of accuracy.  
However, experience shows that the costs of making reasonable accommodation  need not be 
onerous. According to a study conducted for the Department for Work and Pensions99 in the 
UK (where the principle of non- discrimination already applies outside employment), 74% of 
companies said it had been easy to make physical  adjustments, while only 9% said that costs 
were an issue. In another study100 covering 1000 companies, 40% had made some sort of 
adjustment and half of those had found it easy to do so. Other national experiences outside the 
EU show that the costs are not excessive and may represent an i nvestment offering a return. In 
the United States101 a study covering over 1000 adaptations  reported that more than 80% of 
reasonable accommodation adjustments cost less than US $500 but half of all those 
accommodations cost practically nothing.   
A Swiss study102 into the costs of a 2004 law on accessibility  of public and ot her buildings put 
them at 1% of overall annual building costs, or approximate ly CHF 60 (€37) per person per 
year. It found that the adjustments made benefi ted not only the disabled but also people with 
pushchairs/prams and the elderly, so increasing the rental possibilities of certain buildings. 
The study also identified some objective costs, for example, that it costs 32€ a metre to install 
a hand-rail for the visually impaired, that a fi ve-metre ramp with a hand rail costs 4,886€ and 
that widening an existing door costs 1,221€. Th is study also shows that the costs of 
incorporating accessibility solutions into buildi ngs are low to negligible if the necessary 
transformations are taken into account at the planning stage. 
Education providers would have to make reasonable accommodation for pupils and this 
would entail costs, such as for training pe rsonnel and making premises accessible. A Dutch 
                                                 
98 Article 5 of that Directive allows Member States to  authorise the use of sex as a determining factor for 
the calculation of risk in insurance and related financial services, based on actuarial and statistical data.  
99 Research Report No 410: Organisations' resp onses to the Disability Discrimination Act. 
100 Costs and benefits to service providers of making reasonable adjustments under Part III of the Disability 
Discrimination Act. 
101 Accommodation Network of the US department of labour. 
102 Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich: http://www.hindernisfrei-bauen.ch/kosten_d.php  
EN 44   EN study into the impact of the Act on Equal Treatme nt on the grounds of Disability or Chronic 
Illness in primary and secondary education found th at the initial forecast of an annual cost of 
20 million euros was in fact an overestimation103. As far as the general economic impact is 
concerned, however, it has been estimated that if  bringing the educational level of disabled 
people across the EU up to that of disabled pe ople in Germany would bring an economic gain 
in GDP of €40.3 billion104. 
In the area of on line web services, accessible web sites can bring significa nt benefits to their 
organisations. According to the RNIB105 when the UK supermarket chain Tesco spent 
£35 000 to make their on-line shopping website acce ssible to visually impaired people, this 
resulted in revenue of over £13 million a year. 
Public and private transport providers would f ace additional costs, but there would also be 
benefits. Improved access would increase the numbers of disabled passengers and would 
facilitate access for non-targ eted groups (e.g. the elderly and persons with prams). The 
passing-on to consumers of some of the a dditional operating costs cannot be ruled out. A 
study for the Energy and Transport DG on ad apting coaches (long-distance buses) for 
disabled passengers estimated the cost of ma king coaches fully accessible to wheelchair users 
at 2.7% of the total industry revenue, of which 0.5% would be  recouped by increased ticket 
revenue from wheelchair users. If the full cost  were passed on in ticke t prices, the average 
fare (€15.79) would rise by €0.35.  
As mentioned above in Section 4.4 on the ba seline scenario, a di rective would have a 
narrower scope than the UN Convention and it is  reasonable to assume that the additional 
costs of transposition would be relatively low, as they would be already covered by the costs 
of implementing the Convention. A directive w ould therefore not entail additional cost. In 
addition, by being precise about what factors can  be taken into account in assessing whether a 
reasonable accommodation would be disproportionate or not, a dir ective sets out more precise 
parameters to costs than the Convention does.  
In general, the cost to business should be ba lanced against increased access for consumers to 
goods and services, both in their own Member States and elsewhere in the EU. A study on 
"Tourism for All" commissioned by the Ge rman Ministry of Economics and Labour106 found 
that disabled people spend 27 million € a year on holiday in Germany, leading to 65,000 full 
time jobs. So while the immediate beneficiar ies are the groups currently discriminated 
against, businesses will benefit from the spending power of disabled people. 
Mitigating factors 
As said before, when making reasonable acco mmodation, the provider does not need to do 
anything that would impose a disproportionate burden on the business. A directive could 
give an indicative list of factors such as such as cost, company size and resources, benefit to 
disabled people etc which co uld be taken into account in assessing whether making 
reasonable accommodation would be disproportiona te. Clearly, what woul d be appropriate for 
a large corporation or a public body may not be  for a small or medium-sized company. A 
number of Member States, including Belgium, the UK and Cyprus have set out guidelines  to 
help assess whether or not th e burden is disproportionate. The criteria used to assess whether 
                                                 
103 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/pubst/stud/mapstrand2_en.pdf , page 87 
104 EPEC, Study on discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, age, disability and sexual orientation 
outside of employment, p. 101-2. 
105 Royal National Institute of the Blind 
106 http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Navigation/Se rvice/publikationen,did=28398.html  
EN 45   EN or not making a reasonable accommodation would be disproportionate seem to be well 
understood at Member State leve l and the Commission has received no complaints to date 
from providers of goods and services that th ey have been obliged to make accommodation 
that is too expensive, or that they  are unclear about their obligations.  
If banks and insurance companies c ould prove that disability were a determining  factor  in 
the specific case, they could use it as such. Th e costs to the insuranc e and banking services 
sector would accordingly be limited. Th e Commission would, however, encourage the 
insurance and banking industry to explain the rules and methods it applies when using 
disability in assessing risk on the basis of accurate and upda ted data. This process could 
involve setting up working groups with the industr y and relevant stakeholders to look at the 
rules and methods for using disability as a dete rmining factor in assessing risk and price of 
particular products, while endeavouring to ensure that coverage is as wide as possible. This 
could eventually lead to self-regulation (see Option 2). 
A further mitigating measure could be to allow additional time  to the Member States to 
transpose some of the legal obligations relating to  discrimination on grounds  of disability: this 
would allow economic operators to take account  of the requirements when preparing medium-
term business plans and future infrastructure i nvestment. This is important as the costs of 
making reasonable accommodation are very low if this taken into account at the design or 
refurbishment stage. The Member States would ha ve two years to transpose the directive into 
national law, and could, if they wanted to, avail themselves of the possibility of an extra four years to transpose the disability  discrimination aspects. This fo llows the example of Directive 
200078/EC under which up to three extra years co uld be used to transpose the age and 
disability aspects. Only 3 (France, Denmark and the UK) of the original 15 Member States 
made use of the extra time available to implem ent the disability disc rimination provisions of 
that directive, and none of the new Member States did
107. This implies that for the vast 
majority of Member States, transposition of the requirement to provide reasonable 
accommodation was not seen as problematic, and th is conclusion is borne out by the fact that 
no complaints have been received by the Comm ission (whether from employers or disabled 
people) about reasonable accommodation. 
Social impacts 
The positive effect of reducing discrimination in education has been noted above. In the 
United States, the available data confirm that  non-discrimination legislation, such as the 1990 
Americans with Disabilities Act108, has had a positive impact in the education field. The 
proportion of first-time, full-time students with  disabilities attending co lleges and universities 
tripled between 1978 and 1994, risi ng from 2.6% to 9.2%. By 1998 students with disabilities 
had risen to 10.5% of the post- secondary student population. 
                                                 
107 Report on the Implementation of the age and disability discrimination provisions of Directive 
2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 SEC (2005)1176 
108 "The Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Assessing the Progress Toward Achieving the 
Goals of the ADA", U.S. National Council on Disability, 26 July 2007. This report describes a two-year 
retrospective study and review of the impact that su ch legislation had on the lives of Americans with 
disabilities over the previous sixteen years. The US National Council on Disability is an independent federal agency that makes recommendations to the President and Congress to enhance the quality of life 
for all Americans with disabilities and their families. This report can be found at the following website: 
http://www.ncd.g ov/newsroom/publications/20 07/ada_impact_07-26-07.htm
 
EN 46   EN In 2004 a survey confirmed that more people w ith disabilities were participating in higher 
education than before the Americans with Disa bilities Act. 40% of pe ople with disabilities 
received some college education or a de gree (compared with 52% of those without 
disabilities). In 1986 only 29% of people with di sabilities were attempting college (compared 
with 48% of people without disabilities). The gap between those with disabilities and those 
without disabilities attending college narrowed from 19% points to 12% points. 
The same evaluation concludes that many young people with si gnificant disabilities who were 
previously thought unemployable are working in competitive jobs as a result of the education 
they have received. In 1999 nearly 60% of young men and women with  disabilities were 
employed within five years of leaving school , compared with only 33% in the mid-1970s. 
One of the priorities of the European Y outh Pact adopted by the March 2005 European 
Council is to reduce early school leaving109. Poor education may have a major impact on 
social exclusion, and according to Eurostat fi gures, the risk of social exclusion among young 
people is high110. 
In terms of health care , the EPEC study considers that prej udice and negative attitudes play a 
large role in the discrimination disabled people face, a situation which would be improved by the adoption of legislation.  
The social consequences of inaccessible transport  are significant as various studies have 
pointed out
111. The UK Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) survey 
found that disabled adults travel led a third less often than the non-disabled. Half of disabled 
people had turned down a job offer or job interv iew owing to lack of accessible transport, and 
about half said that lack of transport had re stricted their choice of jobs. 21% of respondents 
felt that inaccessible transport had limited the range of adult educatio n and training courses 
available to them. The EPEC study estimates that 5.7 million wheelchair users and 1.6 million 
people with visual impairments have difficu lty in accessing public transport. If public-
transport systems were obliged to improve accessi bility for the disabled, there would be clear 
benefits in terms of employability and so cial inclusion, as mentioned above.  
The explanatory memorandum to the Commis sion proposal for a regulation on disabled 
persons and persons with reduced mobility wh en travelling by air pointed to the social 
benefits of making transport more accessible, noting that 'Without such opportunities, they 
would not only lose the direct benefits of air trav el but also the indirect one of fuller inclusion 
in the economic and social life of the community112. 
Environmental impact 
If more disabled people were able to use public transport, this  would have a positive 
environmental impact by reduci ng the use of private cars. 
                                                 
109 Commission Communication on European Policies concerning Youth (COM (2005) 206 final). 
110 European Social Statistics Second report on ‘Income, poverty and social exclusion’ notes that ‘in 1997 
children and young people as well as persons of retirement age had poverty risks which were 
approximately 25% higher than the average’ 2nd report. Data 1994-1997.  
111 Cited in ‘Evidence based review on mobility: Choi ces and barriers for different social groups’ (UK 
Department for Transport: 
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/scienceresearch/soci al/evidence_base_review_on_mobility?page=5  
112 COM(2005)047 
EN 47   EN  
Assessment of Option 5 – single-ground directive  
Objective to be achieved/problem addressed Comments 
Increase protection  Yes, but partial. Prot ection from discrimination would increase in 
field covered by the directive.  
Legal certainty  Yes, but partial. Directive would prohibit one type of discrimination 
across EU, but would not affect diffe rent levels of protection from 
other types of discrimina tion among Member States  
Enhance social inclusion  Yes, partly. By reduc ing one type of discrimination a specific 
directive would help some people pa rticipate more fully in economic 
and social life.  
Effective remedies  for victims  Yes, partly. In fields covered by directive, an enforcement 
mechanism should provide remedies for individuals. 
Protection against multiple discrimination Yes, but partial. Directive w ould specifically prohibit multiple 
discrimination on grounds covered,  but would not solve general 
problem of gap in explicit protection. 
Extension of Equality Bodies' competence Yes, but partial, only in re spect of the ground concerned. 
Information on rights and obligations  Information on rights contained in  directive would have to be 
disseminated; this could be done by Member State and/or 
Commission. 
Consistency with European Union's general 
objectives  There would be some additional positive contribution to objectives 
of Partnership for Growth and Jobs , some free movement of persons 
and cross-border trade might be stimulated, and some additional 
protection of fundamental rights. 
Cost – effectiveness  Higher costs for disability than for other grounds. Providers of goods 
and services would face costs, but would also benefit from the 
greater economic participation of disabled people. Effectiveness 
could be increased by providing for transitional periods & specific 
exceptions. 
Impact on baseline scenario Positive on all items as regards disability 
7.6. Option 6: Multi-ground directive  
A multi-ground directive would supplement the existing legal framework and provide a clear 
legal remedy for victims of discrimination. Such  a directive would pr ohibit discrimination 
outside employment on grounds of age, disabilit y, sexual orientation a nd religion or belief, 
thus leading to a clear increase in the level of protection. As was mentioned in Subsection 6.4, 
legislation cannot eradic ate discrimination on its own, but it  gives victims a remedy and may 
also have a preventative effect. There is no doub t that the existing EC directives had a major 
impact in the Member States and led to a defini te increase in the level and effectiveness of 
protection from discrimination.  
This option could ensure a comm on approach in area s such as definitions of discrimination, 
procedures and remedies. As far as possible, a new directive would build  on concepts used in 
the previous directives adopted under Article 13  EC. These concepts, such as the definitions 
of discrimination and harassment and procedural  rules such as those on the burden of proof113 
and sanctions, are already part of the nationa l anti-discrimination framework which economic 
operators have to understand and observe. Fr om the information available and through the 
experience of the transposition exercise for th e previous directives, these points were not 
particularly problematic. It is  logical to apply the same c oncepts to discrimination on all 
                                                 
113 Under which if the person alleging that their rights have been breached must present facts from which it 
may be presumed there has been discrimination, it then falls to the other party to provide that there has 
been no breach of the prin ciple of equal treatment 
EN 48   EN grounds, as the issues are very si milar and to do otherwise risk s implying that some types of 
discrimination are more worthy of  protection than others. This  greatly limits the new legal 
concepts which the Member States will have to transpose into national law, and which economic operators will have to understand and observe. 
Although its horizontal nature could imply difficu lty in dealing with the specificities of 
different types of discrimination, this was not a particular problem in Directive 2000/78/EC, 
the previous multi-ground directive adopted un der Article 13 EC, and specific provisions 
could deal with the different t ypes of discrimination as necessary . As with that directive, it 
might be necessary to have long er transitional periods for some measures related to aspects of 
discrimination that are potentially difficult or costly to deal with, such as age and disability. In 
relation to the prohibition of di scrimination based on disabilit y, the discussion under Option 5 
on what might be required to improve access to goods and service for disabled people, as well 
as the economic and social impacts and possibl e mitigating factors, apply equally to this 
option. 
A new directive prohibiting discrimination on gr ounds of age, disability, sexual orientation 
and religion and belief outside the labour market  could address certain  sensitivities that 
became apparent during the infringement pr ocedures related to Directive 2000/78/EC, 
covering the same grounds in the employment cont ext. The most sensitive issues are around 
the relationship between the right to non-discrimination and the enjoyment of other fundamental rights, such as the right to privat e life and freedom of religion. In addition, the 
scope of the directive could be limited, in relation to acce ss to goods and services, to 
commercial transactions as oppos ed to purely private ones. 
The EPEC study estimates that adopting EC legislation and ma king it a requirement for the 
Member States to have an equality body to he lp victims of discrimi nation could reduce the 
problems identified by anything from 5% to 20% . 16 Member States already have a body or 
bodies covering all forms of discrimination. 
A directive would respect the prin ciples of subsidiarity (there  is a case for European level 
action on discrimination is shown in this report  and already establishe d with the adoption of 
three Article 13 directives) and of proportionality . Member States which already have detailed 
legal protection from discrimina tion outside the labour market w ould not need to make major 
changes to their legislation.  
Economic impact 
In terms of disability discrimination, there are costs associated with making "reasonable 
accommodation". These have been addressed under option 5. 
Discrimination in access to goods and services  may have a direct financial impact on 
individuals  or a non-financial impact in terms of  embarrassment and discomfort. The EPEC 
study estimates, for example, that across the EU, an estimated 652,000 openly gay or lesbian 
persons may experience discrimination in hotels, and an estimated 2,175,000 in bars or 
restaurants. It estimates too that up to 6 m illion people over 80 are excluded from consumer 
services. If discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation were reduced in education, the 
resulting loss of earning capaci ty, estimated at 14% in the EPEC study, would be reduced.  
Providers of goods and services  would be prohibited from di scriminating against customers 
on grounds of age, disability, se xual orientation, religion or  belief. There would be an 
obligation to ensure accessibili ty and provide reasonable accom modation for disabled people, 
EN 49   EN as explained in detail under option 5 above. Co mpliance costs would be  marginal, except in 
the case of disability, for which, see option 5 above.  
In the insurance and banking sector , a directive would confirm th at age and disability could 
be maintained as factors for determining risk in certain types of pr oducts where age and/or 
disability is a determining factor  in assessing the risk for specific products. The explanation 
of mitigating factors given in  option 5 would apply equally to this option, as would the 
possibility of self-regulation.  
In the health  sector, complaints primarily concern th e 'rationing' of treatment based on the 
age of patients. Any legislativ e proposal would need to make it clear that it was without 
prejudice to the right of the Member States to organise their social security and health-care 
systems. This provision, together with a genera l exemption for differences of treatment where 
the aim is legitimate and the measures are necessary and proportionate, would shield health-care providers from a significant financial impact.  
As to education , prohibiting discrimination on grounds of  religion, sexual orientation and age 
in the fields where the EU can act would cost very little and could have a very positive effect: according to the EPEC study, discrimination in e ducation on grounds of sexual orientation is 
an area where legislation could have a very benefi cial effect at little co st. The potential impact 
of prohibiting discrimination on grounds of disa bility in the educatio n sector, and Member 
States' competences, is d ealt with under option 5. 
Concern about the impact of new age-discrimination legislation on preferential treatment  
has been raised by a number of  organisations and MEPs. Pref erential treatment is often 
available to people above or below a certain age and exists in a range of sectors, such as transport, culture and education. A directive w ould specify that such differences treatment 
would not constitute discrimination, if, within th e context of national law, they are objectively 
and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, and if the means of achieving that aim are 
appropriate and necessary. It is less clear that a general exception should be granted for 
preferential treatment provided by commercial providers as a ma rketing tool. However, if the 
measure complies with the legitimate aim requ irement and the means of achieving that aim 
are proportionate and necessary, then the di fference in treatment might be acceptable.  
Social impact 
The impact of legislation on improving access to  education, explained under Option 5, also 
applies to this option. Th e positive benefits of re ducing discrimination in education  accrue to 
individuals and soci ety as a whole. Since people who currently su ffer from discrimination 
would be better educated, they w ould get better jobs, and this w ould reduce the risk of social 
exclusion and welfare dependenc y. The effect of homophobic bullying in schools, and its 
consequences, was noted in Subsection 4.2.3 above. 
Good health  is a prerequisite for participating fully in education, employ ment and society in 
general. Poor health can lead to unemploym ent, welfare dependency, poverty, isolation and 
social exclusion. The EPEC study estimates that  legislation prohibiting discrimination could 
have a very positive effect in this area and reduce problems by up to 20%. They estimate that the direct tax revenue foregone due to the reduced wage-earning capacity of LGB persons 
caused by ill-health is €166 million a year, and put the figure for the disabled at €213 million.  
Discrimination on grounds of age in health ca re was highlighted in the submission from 
Age-Platform. Tackling this will contribute to  the reduction of health inequalities which is 
EN 50   EN one of the goals of the recently adopted Second  Programme of Community  action in the field 
of health (2008-13)114. In its new health st rategy (2008-13), the Comm ission has identified the 
need to foster good health in an ageing Eu rope as one of three strategic objectives115. The 
importance of achieving "active ageing" and increasing the active economic and social participation of the older population were unde rlined in the Commi ssion's Communication 
’The demographic future of Europe  – from challenge to opportunity’
116. 
Environmental impact 
Any measure that results in more people, in particular the elderly and the disabled, using 
public transport would have a pos itive environmental impact thr ough a reduction in the use of 
private cars. Assessment of Option 6 - Multi-ground directive
  
Objective to be achieved/problem addressed Comments 
Increase protection  This option would achieve this objective. 
Legal certainty  EC legal framework would be co mpleted, with protection from 
discrimination on all grounds  listed in Article 13. 
Enhance social inclusion  In prohibiting discrimination, soci al exclusion should be reduced. 
Effective remedies  for victims  Yes. Effective remedies would be av ailable to victims of discrimination 
on grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief. 
Protection against multiple discrimination Yes, to a great extent. The directive would specifically prohibit multiple 
discrimination related to the grou nds covered by the Directive. 
Extension of Equality Bodies' competence Yes 
Information on rights and obligations  Information on rights contained in a directive would have to be 
disseminated; this could be done by  Member State and/or Commission. 
Consistency with EU's general objectives  This option would further the goals of  Partnership for Growth and Jobs, 
free movement of persons and cro ss-border trade may be stimulated, 
and there is additional protect ion of fundamental rights. 
Cost – effectiveness  This option would involve compara tively higher benefits and higher 
costs. Effectiveness could be incr eased by using justified specific 
exceptions and transitional periods to reduce costs. 
Impact on baseline scenario Positive on all items 
                                                 
114 Decision 1350/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 establishing 
a second programme of Community action in the field of health (2008-13). 
115 COM (2007) 630 final. 
116 COM (2006) 571 final. 
EN 51   EN 8. COMPARISON OF OPTIONS  
The impact of the options examined in the pr eceding sections are summarised in the table 
below: 
Overview table  
Objective to be 
achieved/problem 
addressed No new 
action Self-
regulation Specific 
recommendation General 
recommendation Single-ground 
directive Multi-ground 
directive  
Increase 
protection  neutral positive positive positive positive positive 
Legal certainty  neutral neutral neutral negative positive positive 
Enhance social 
inclusion  neutral positive positive positive positive positive 
Effective 
remedies for 
victims  neutral positive positive positive positive positive 
Protection against 
multiple 
discrimination neutral neutral positive positive positive positive 
Extension of 
Equality Bodies' 
competence neutral neutral positive neutral positive positive 
Information on 
rights and 
obligations  neutral positive neutral/positive positive positive positive 
Consistency with 
EU's general 
objectives  neutral positive neutral/positive positive positive positive 
Cost – 
effectiveness  neutral positive  neutral/positive neutral/positive positive positive 
Baseline scenario neutral positive neutral/positive neutral/positive positive positive 
The option of not taking acti on would not tackle the problems which have been identified, 
would mean that the economic and societal cost s remain, and would run the risk of allowing a 
widening of the gap in legal protection. In view of commitments made by the Commission, 
Council conclusions, calls from  the European Parliament, and the expectations of 
stakeholders, this option would also  be difficult to defend politically. 
A combination of measures 
Among the courses of action discussed, no single  option can meet the all objectives unless 
there is a wholesale revision of  the legal framework including the current legislation. This 
would be a disproportional response given the degree of legal uncerta inty it would create 
while a new framework was being negotiated.  
However a combination of binding and non-bindi ng measures would represent an important 
step forward, building on what has already b een achieved with the current Article 13 
directives and accompanying measures. An appr opriate package could include a multi-ground 
directive, a recommendation on multiple disc rimination and on equality bodies, and the 
launch of a dialogue with specific economic sect ors to develop a self-re gulation approach to 
tackling discrimination in th e provision of services.  
Whichever combination is decided, there would be a package of accompanying measures 
including the establishment of a more struct ured dialogue and exchange between Member 
EN 52   EN States as well as other relevant actors, and the intensification of awareness-raising and 
capacity building measures. 
As already noted, the adjustments which Member States would need to make to their laws 
will vary since some are more advanced than others. Moreover, new legislation would use the 
same principles as in the current laws (for ex ample on definitions and types of discrimination, 
reasonable accommodation, role of equality bodi es, procedural rules such as sharing the 
burden of proof and right of interested associatio ns to engage in legal procedures, and so on). 
So, where additional measures need to be take n by Member States, the related administrative 
and compliance costs will be marginal since they will build on the existing framework of 
legislation, implementation and re porting. In the case of  companies, it is to be emphasised 
that administrative costs for co mpanies would also be marginal  since there would not be a 
requirement to gather and transmit inform ation to national or  other authorities. 
The added value of EU action 
As to the added value of EU action, the EU ha s a clear legislative competence in this area 
(Article 13 EC) and, as shown previous ly, part of the problem derives from the 
incompleteness of the EU legal framework.  
The EU added value in this area is demons trated by the previous intervention of the 
Community legislator in this field. The main driver for the adoption of the present non-
discrimination laws at national level was the need to transpose the current EC Directives. In the absence of new legislation at EU level, it  thus seems unlikely that national laws will be 
greatly extended. So, while a par ticular form of discrimination could be challenged before a 
court of first instance in one Me mber State on the basis of a civi l law claim, the same case of 
discrimination could be difficult to mount in Me mber States with only a general constitutional 
provision prohibiting discrimina tion and not possible at all in  others. Member State action 
alone, based on national constitution al and legal frameworks, is unlik ely to lead to an increase 
in the level of protectio n against discrimination.  
The reasons for previous legal acts remain valid and there is no reason to call into question the 
added value of EU action in this form. Indeed, legal experts
117 as well as the European 
Parliament have confirmed it.  
Differences in implementation (in terms of ti ming and effectiveness) of the UN Convention 
on the rights of persons with disabilities coul d exacerbate the differences in the level of 
protection against disability discrimination across the Member States. Such differences could hinder the effective application of the freedom of movement of people but also of goods and 
services and thus alter the functioning of th e internal market. Developing a consistent 
approach across the EU on what the principle of non-discrimina tion on grounds of disability 
entails as regards the rights and obligations for those concerned w ould thus bring legal 
certainly and clarity to people with  disabilities and economic operators. 
In addition, the UN Convention does not oblige a State Party to  be a Party to the Optional 
Protocol that provides for competence of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities to receive and cons ider communications from those subject to its jurisdiction who 
claim to be victims of a viol ation of the provisions of the Convention. The Committee on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities is not a judi cial institution and its findings have no binding 
                                                
 
117 See footnote 129 below 
EN 53   EN force in law118. The mechanisms of enforcement and redress are therefore weak, and could be 
better guaranteed in EC legislation, which w ould provide a uniform and minimal protection 
with reference to some of the obligations of the UN Convention. 
At the informal ministerial meeting on di sability issues in Slovenia in May 2008,119 Member 
States confirmed their commitment to implementing the Convention and to maintaining close cooperation at EU level in doing so. They iden tified areas of common interest including the 
compliance of non-discrimination legisla tion with the Convention’s provisions. 
Furthermore, as shown in the baseline scen ario (see Subsection 4.4.) , EU intervention is 
needed in order to reach a level playing fiel d which would allow citi zens and businesses to 
exercise their internal market rights. If no acti on is taken at EU level, there will still be 
untapped potential for businesses to develop mark ets for services in ot her countries. Providers 
of goods and services are faced with a comple x mosaic of differing national provisions on 
discrimination when operating acr oss borders. As noted earlier in  the Report, two-thirds of 
businesses consulted via the European Business Test Panel think this matters. And differing 
levels of protection from discrimina tion influence individuals' decisions  to make use of their 
rights of free movement, for instance to travel, work or study in anothe r Member State. Again, 
two-thirds of those who replied to the public  consultation think this matters and it would 
affect their decision about whether to go to another Member State. The need for a level 
playing field also has an intuitive aspect - a person living in a country which has a high level of protection against discrimina tion is unlikely to go a country which has a much lower level 
of protection and would have no means of re dress if they are di scriminated against. 
• In addition, the Flash Eurobarometer survey conducted in February 2008 
120 highlighted 
that the majority of EU citizens (from 68 % to 77%) see a need in thei r country for specific 
legislation to protect people from discriminatio n in areas beyond the labour market such as 
education (77% in favour),  healthcare (76%), housing (7 1%), when buying insurance 
policies (70%), when buying products  or using services (68%).  
Non-discrimination is a fundamental value of the EU, and a general principle of Community 
law, according to the European Court of Justic e. Given the general ri ght to equality, there 
should be a minimum and equivalent level of protection against discrimination outside the 
employment sphere, for the diffe rent types of discrimination c overed by Article 13 EC, across 
all the Member States. Despite the signature by the Member States of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the onl y certain way to achieve an EU wide minimum 
level of protection is through an EC legislative act.  
                                                
 
118 based on ECJ judgment of 17 February 1998 in Case C-249/96, par 46 on the Human Right Committee 
119 http://www.mddsz.gov.si/fileadmin/ mddsz.gov.si/pageuploa ds/dokumenti__pdf/ns_invalidi_sklepi_220508_en.pdf  
120 Flash Eurobarometer 232 ; the full results are available online at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_232_en.pdf  
EN 54   EN Conclusion 
 
As a community of people, based on shared va lues, the European Union has been given the 
means to combat discrimination on the grounds of  race and ethnic origi n, religion or belief, 
age, disability and sexual orientation in Article 13 EC-Treaty. Two directives were adopted in 
2000, which triggered important improvements in national legislation and put Europe at the 
forefront of the fight against discrimination. 
However, these two directives differ in their material scope, establishing a more far-reaching 
protection against discrimination on the ground of race and ethnic origin than for the other grounds, thus creating a de facto  'hierarchy of grounds' not reflected in Article 13. The 
question thus arises of how to match the scope of protection for all th e grounds. This could be 
achieved in a comprehensive approach with one  single legal instrument or with a more 
progressive, discriminati on ground by ground approach.  
After defining the main objectives of a new Co mmunity action - to incr ease protection against 
discrimination on grounds of age, disability, se xual orientation and religion or belief, to 
ensure legal certainty and to guarantee effect ive remedies - this impact assessment has 
considered the possible effects of six polic y options: no new action at EU-level, self-
regulation in specific sectors, a recommendation dealing specifical ly with the competences of 
the equality bodies and multiple discrimination,  a general recommendation; a single ground 
directive and a multi-ground directive. 
It comes to the conclusion that a legally bi nding measure at Commun ity level extending the 
scope of protection against discrimination on grounds  of age, disability, sexual orientation and 
religion or belief would be the best suited instrument to ach ieve the defined objectives.  
9. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ARRANGEMENTS  
9.1. Possible indicators 
Using quantitative indicators in assessing the existence and scale of discrimination raises a 
number of difficulties. Discrimination involves complex social phenomena. It may occur in 
quite different environments—in schools, hosp itals, shops, cinemas, restaurants—and in 
many other situations and sett ings of social life. In addi tion, assessing the existence of 
discrimination implies a value judgment of the act ual facts (for example, what is justified and 
what is not). This latter exercise is usually  at odds with the normal methods for collecting 
quantitative, aggregated data. What is more, it is  often difficult to find reliable data, since this 
involves personal information of a particular de licate nature (such as a person's religion or 
sexual orientation) and, owing to  restrictive practices and rules in a large majority of Member 
States, data in this area are scarce. 
The isolated use of a single indicator can misl ead. For example, the incidence and extent of 
discrimination may be gauged from the number of  complaints of discrimination presented to 
national courts. But that figure may conceal th e existence of victims who do not know their 
rights and do not make complaints, and of succe ssful mediation arrangements arrived at in 
cases brought before equality bodies. Inversely, a sharp rise in  the number of complaints 
brought before the courts, equality bodies or NGOs  may simply indicate that action to raise 
awareness of the issues has been effective. 
EN 55   EN Nonetheless, careful use of a combination of se lected indicators can prov ide an accurate idea 
of the facts with a view to suitable monitori ng of the situation a nd correct assessment of 
measures taken. 
Several indicators of different  types, both quantitative (for  example, the number of 
complaints) and qualitative (for example, the Commission's assessment of national legislation's conformity with the directive), s hould therefore be used and relevant information 
collected from different sources. This method should reduce the risk of overestimating or 
underestimating the phenomenon. A cross-analysis  based on different sources should also 
cancel out any bias on the part of the body collecting or collating the information.  
9.2. Monitoring 
In line with the objectives set out above, Annex VII pr esents several pro posals for indicators 
and sources of, or methods for collecting, info rmation needed for purposes of monitoring. 
Such information is needed by the Commission as part of active follow-up to the transposition and implementation process in the Member States. 
These proposals also draw inspiration from e xperience gained in monitoring implementation 
of the existing Directives (D irectives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC ). Monitoring of those two 
Directives was carried out with assistance ini tially from the Community action programme to 
combat discrimination (2001-06) and subs equently from the Progress programme 
(2007-13)
121. 
Under those programmes, the EU set up and fund s the European network of legal experts in 
the non-discrimination field, which suppor ts the Commission's work by providing 
independent information and advice on relevant  legal developments in the Member States, 
and in particular on the implementation of th e two existing non-discrimination Directives.  
In addition, the Progress progr amme also funds Equinet, the European network of EU 
equality bodies. It seeks to develop cooperati on between specialised equality bodies and to 
facilitate effective exchange of  experience and expertise. Thes e bodies are and will continue 
to be sources of relevant information on impl ementation of the non-discrimination Directives, 
including that now proposed. 
While other activities undert aken under the two programmes mentioned above were not 
designed primarily for information collecting, they  may also provide useful data. This is the 
case, for instance, of training activ ities targeting le gal professionals122, which provide an 
opportunity for the Commission to obtain deta iled information from participants on 
implementation of the Directives in their countries. 
Lastly, in accordance with the Commission Comm unication "A Europe of  results – Applying 
Community law"123, the Commission suggests setting up an expert group of representatives of 
the Member States and the Commission (the "Legal Monitoring Group"), which would meet 
                                                 
121 Decision No 1672/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 
establishing a Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity — Progress, OJ L 315/1 
of 15 November 2006. 
122 For example, from 2003 to 2007, 781 people (471 judges and 310 lawyers and NGOs members), from 
33 European countries, participated in training sessions on Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC 
organised by the European Law Academy of Trier. 
123 COM(2007) 502 final 
EN 56   EN to discuss issues concerning the transposition of  the proposed directive,  along the lines of the 
Legal Working Group that met between 2001 a nd 2004 to consider the implementation of 
Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/ 78/EC. The proposed expert group would ensure improved 
information flow between EU and national auth orities on how the directive is implemented 
and is intended to help anticipate and resolve problems more effectively. By the same token, the Commission will also request that a contact point be designated for each Member State on 
the implementation of the proposed directive. In  the case of a disabili ty only directive the 
relevance of the existing Disability High le vel group and the forthcoming mechanisms to 
monitor the implementation of the UN C onvention will need to be considered. 
9.3. Transposition  
The time limit for transposing the directive would be two y ears, although a l onger period 
could be considered for certain age and disabi lity provisions. This could be justified by the 
fact that a directive covering discriminati on on such grounds may be more complex for 
economic operators to put into effect in some areas. 
It is suggested that six years after the adopt ion of the directive, the governments of the 
Member States and the national equality bodies  send the Commission information for a report 
to Parliament and the Council on the application of  the directive. The report may make 
proposals to revise and update the directive. 
When drafting the report the Commission will al so take due account of the opinion of and 
information provided by Parliament, relevant stakeholders (businesses, European NGOs, and 
social partners) and the EU Fundamental Rights  Agency. The report should also take account 
of the results of the activities of the "Eurostat Task Force on discriminati on statistics", set up 
recently with the overall aim of developing a ge neral framework for the regular collection of 
statistics on the extent and impact of discrimination.  
EN 57   EN ANNEX I: Summary of the consultation of  the European level NGOs and social 
partners  
Organisation Main comments 
European Older People's Platform (AGE-Platform) Directive prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age, 
sexual orientation, disability and religion or belief in all the non-employment areas covered by directive 
2000/43, but with special provisions for age 
discrimination. 
Differences of treatment should be based on specific 
risks, not use age as a simple proxy. 
Stereotyping and negative images of older people in 
the media should be tackled. 
Certain types of preferential treatment should be 
allowed, as should positive action. 
Protection against multiple discrimination should be 
included. 
The provision of information on any new rights should 
be strengthened, and awaren ess raising is essential. 
An Equality Body should be established. 
European Disability Forum (EDF) Directive prohibiting discrimination on grounds of 
disability in all the non-employment areas covered by 
directive 2000/43. 
The prohibition of discrimination should also cover 
access to information, tran sport, telecommunications, 
content of media, the built environment and public 
space. Goods should be de signed with accessibility 
features. 
Strengthening of positive action provisions. 
An Equality Body should be established, but its 
expertise should not be "watered down" by in adequate 
resources and having to deal with all types of 
discrimination. 
European Network Against Racism (ENAR) Protection of 3rd country nationals against 
discrimination based on nationality, in particular 
concerning immigration and asylum. 
Protection against multiple discrimination should be 
included. 
Need to tackle institutional/structural discrimination 
more effectively. 
Protection against discrimination in criminal justice. 
Strengthening of positive action provisions. 
Non-discrimination should be mainstreamed in all EU 
EN 58   EN policies. 
European Women's Lobby 
(EWL) New directive prohibiting discrimination on the basis 
of gender. 
Education, health care, the media should be expressly 
covered, as well as social advantages and social assistance. 
Protection against multiple discrimination should be 
included. 
Equality Bodies should be specifically required to 
address issues concerning gender discrimination. 
International Lesbian and Gay Association 
(ILGA-Europe) Directive prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age, 
sexual orientation, disability and religion or belief in 
all the non-employment areas covered by directive 
2000/43. 
Protection against multiple discrimination should be 
included. 
Recognition of same sex couples, and removal of 
exception for rules related to marital status. 
Equality bodies should be adequately resourced and 
should be proactive in preventing discrimination. 
A European Fund for litigation to support test cases 
should be established. 
BusinessEurope Did not see any evidence of discrimination outside the 
labour market in respect of which people have no legal protection. The current EU and national frameworks 
are sufficient. 
All the non-discrimination rules are difficult to follow 
and should be explained simply. 
In access to goods and services, it should be possible 
to tailor treatment to the client in question.  
EU action should be limited to exchanges of 
experience and the promotion of good practice. 
Information and training for companies would be 
useful.  
European Centre of Enterprises with Public 
Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest (CEEP) Discrimination does exist in some countries, and 
people have no legal protection against it. 
The cost of non-discrimination largely falls on public 
providers (hospitals, social security, public housing 
etc), and lack of sufficient resources is a key obstacle.  
Awareness raising is essential to combat ignorance of 
the law.  
Equal access to health, education and housing is 
essential to achieve greater social inclusion as well as 
employability and adaptability on the labour market. 
Need to look at situati ons where there is conflict 
between different types of discrimination.  
EN 59   EN Mainstreaming of the principle of non-discrimination.  
European Association of Craft, small and medium-
sized enterprises (UEAPME) There is a gap in the legislative protection against 
discrimination, but non-legislative measures such as 
awareness-raising are crucial in addressing 
discrimination and preventing it in the first place.  
Member States and professional organisations should 
provide support mechanisms and information for small 
businesses in particular. 
There should only be one Equality Body in each 
Member State (simpler, and would help tackle multiple 
discrimination). 
Council of European Profe ssional and Managerial 
Staff (Eurocadres) Did not see any particular evidence of discrimination 
outside the labour market, although there was a lot of discrimination against older workers as regards senior 
positions.  
European Trade Union Congress (ETUC) New directive prohibiting discrimination on grounds 
of age, sexual orientation, disability and religion or 
belief in all the non-employment areas covered by directive 2000/43.  
Exclusion of discrimination on grounds of nationality 
should be reviewed.  
Tackling discrimination outside employment has 
strong links to the field of employment.  
Protection against multiple discrimination should be 
included as well as positive action.  
Equality bodies should be in dependent and adequately 
resourced, and should be empowered to general investigations of specific sectors. 
Need to look at situati ons where there is conflict 
between different types of discrimination.  
EN 60   EN Submissions were also received from the fo llowing organisations and can be seen on 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social /fundamental_rights/ org/imass_en.htm  
Equinet 
Equality and Human Rights Commission GB 
COFACE (Confédération des organisations familiales de l'UE)  
Help the Aged UK,  
Age-Concern in the UK  
The Equality and Diversity Forum (UK)  
SOS Consumer Protection Association in the Czech Republic,  
"Verbraucherrecht" (consumer rights) in Austria  
The European Youth Forum  
The European Blind Union  
The Discrimination Law Association (UK) 
HOTREC (Confederation of national hotel associations in the EC and EEA) 
Association of British Insurers 
Assuralia , Belgium 
VV - Austrian insurance association 
Test Achats (Association Belge des Consommateurs) 
Care for Europe 
ECTAA - The European travel agents' and tour operators' associations 
Eurofinas – Specialised consumer  credit providers in Europe 
EN 61   EN ANNEX II: Legal Framework  
Antidiscrimination law in the EU 
International law UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
 European Convention on Human Rights 
EC-law Article 13  
 
  Art. 13 (1) Art. 13 (2) 
  Directive 2000/43 incentive measures 
 Directive 2000/78 
 Directive 2004/113 
Member States Constitutional provisions 
 Labour law Administrative law Penal law  Social law Civil law 
(7) European Union  
Article 13(1) of the EC Treaty  empowers the Council to adopt unanimously measures to 
combat discrimination on the basi s of sex, racial or ethnic orig in, religion or belief, age or 
sexual orientation. This is  a closed list. Ar ticle 13(1) does not give a free-standing right to 
non-discrimination to individuals, nor is it directly applicable . Three directives have been 
adopted so far on the basis of Artic le 13(1) EC, Directives 2000/43/EC124, 2000/78/EC125 and 
2004/113/EC126. All three Directives prohibit direct discrimination, indirect discrimination 
and harassment as well as instructions to di scrimination, which are considered a form of 
discrimination. Article 13(2)  of the Treaty allows the Counc il to adopt Community incentive 
measures to support action taken under Article 13127.  
Directive 2000/43  protects people against discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin 
not only in employment and vocational training but also in the fields of education, social 
protection, health care, social security and access to goods and services available to the 
public, including housing.  
Under Directive 2000/78 protection against discrimination on grounds of age, religion or 
belief, disability and sexual orientation only applies in employment and vocational training. 
There is a specific exception allowing direct  discrimination on grounds of age in certain 
                                                 
124 OJ L 180 of 19.7.2000, p.22. 
125 OJ L. 303 of 2.12.2000, p.16. 
126 OJ L 373 of 21.12 2004, p. 37. 
127 Article 13(2) was the legal base used for the deci sion of the Parliament and Council setting up the 
European Year of Equal Opportunities for All (Decision No 771/2006/EC) as well as the Regulation 
establishing the European Institute of Gende r Equality (Regulation (EC) nº 1922/2006) 
EN 62   EN circumstances. Employers are obliged to pr ovide "reasonable accommodation" for disabled 
workers in order to allow them access to a jo b they are qualified for, as long as doing so 
would not impose a disproportiona te burden on the employer.  
There is a vast corpus of gender equality legislation  at EC level, adopted under what is now 
Article 141 EC, prohibiting discrimination betw een men and women in employment, social 
security and occupational pensions. Directive 2004/113  prohibits discrimination on grounds 
of gender outside employment in the supply of  goods and services (exc luding the content of 
media and advertising, and the education secto r). It contains a speci fic provision allowing 
Member States to permit proportionate differen ces in individuals' premiums and benefits 
where the use of sex is a determini ng factor in the assessment of risk. 
Directive 2000/43 requires the Member States to establis h a body (or bodies) to promote 
equal treatment of all persons without discri mination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin. 
The Directive lays down three mi nimum competences for this body: 
– to provide independent assistan ce to victims of discrimination 
– to conduct independent survey s concerning discrimination 
– to publish independent reports and make recommendations on issues relating to 
discrimination 
An equivalent obligation, in terms of gender equa lity, both in the employment sphere and 
outside it, is contained in Directives 2002/73 and 2004/113. Th e creation of equality bodies 
has proved to be a key factor in combating di scrimination, providing victims with a source of 
advice and help, as well as contributing greatl y to awareness raising. In terms of access to 
justice the equality bodi es play a vital role128. It should be noted that no such obligat ion exists 
under Directive 2000/78, w ith the result that victims of discrimination on grounds of age, 
disability, religion or belief a nd sexual orientation outside the labour mark et do not have an 
equality body to turn to for help. 
The following table gives an overview over the mate rial scope of the three directives adopted 
on the basis of Article 13(1). 
                                                 
128 See report “Catalysts for Cha nge? Equality bodies according to Directive 2000/43/EC”,by Legal 
Experts’ Group available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/legnet/06catalyst_en.pdf  
EN 63   EN Table: Overview of material sc ope of existing directives adopte d on the basis of Article 13(1) 
Grounds 
Field Race Religion Disability Age Sexual 
orientation Sex 
Employment & 
vocational training Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Education Yes No No No No No 
Goods and services Yes No No No No Yes 
Social protection Yes No No No No Yes 
The presently existing regulatory architecture thus creates a hierarchy of discrimination 
grounds, whereas Article 13 defines all discri mination grounds as equally important and 
worthy of protection. This hier archy of grounds is not simply  a legalistic or academic 
problem: it means that in practice individuals can bring cases of race discrimination outside 
the employment area before national courts wh ile, for example, an analogous case involving 
discrimination on the ground of religion leaves the concerne d individual without a legal 
redress. It can thus be said that the present law "lacks clarit y, consistency and coherency" and 
makes it difficult for perpetrators to know thei r obligations and for victims to know their 
rights129. 
There are also detailed Community law rules on accessibility of air travel for passengers with 
reduced mobility130 and an equivalent measure was adopted for railways on 3.12.2007131, 
which require transport providers  to give all necessary assist ance to individual disabled 
passengers who have given notice th at they will be travelling. 
The EU Charter  of Fundamental Rights which forms part of the Treaty of Lisbon, provides 
in its Article 21 that a ny discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic 
or social origin, genetic featur es, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, 
membership of a national minority, property, birt h, disability, age or sexual orientation shall 
be prohibited. Article 26 a ddresses the rights of pe rsons with disabilities. 
(8) Member States  
All Member States have transposed direc tives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC into national 
law132 This required legislative changes in all Me mber States, and resulted in the introduction 
of specific protection against discrimination in areas where it had not existed before 
(primarily the non-employment aspects) and fo r certain groups which had not previously 
enjoyed protection against disc rimination (in particular with  respect to age and sexual 
orientation).  
Whereas prior to transposition of Directiv es 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC many EU Member 
States provided protection against discriminatio n through a patchwork of – largely declaratory 
                                                 
129 UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, Contribution to the European Commission's consultation, 
2007.  
130 Regulation 1107/2006/EC 
131 Regulation 1371/2007/EC 
132 Report from the Commission on the application of Directive 2000/43: COM (2006) 643 final and on 
Directive 2000/78/EC; COM (2008) final. 
EN 64   EN –equality clauses in a series of legislative instruments, by now, most have adopted more 
visible specific non-disc rimination legislation133. 
To some extent, all the Member States go beyond the minimum required by the above-
mentioned EC directives, whether through ge neral constitutional provisions or detailed 
legislation covering prohibiting so me or all types of discrimina tion. Five Member States have 
detailed legal protection against discrimination on grounds of age, religion or belief, disability 
and sexual orientation in all th e non-employment areas listed  in Directive 2000/43 (Ireland, 
Hungary, Luxembourg, Bulg aria and Slovenia). 
                                                 
133 Mark Bell, Isabelle Chopin, Fiona Palmer for the European Network of Independent Experts in the non-
discrimination field, Developing anti-discrimination Law in Europe, the 25 EU Member States 
compared, Ja nuary 2007. 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/legnet/07compan_en.pdf  
EN 65   EN ANNEX III: Legal Situation in the Member States  
Non-exhaustive comparison of legal protection beyond the existing directives  134 
Key: 
"L" = legislative protection against discrimination "C" = constitutional protec tion against discrimination 
"x" = partial protection against discrimination 
Member 
State Grounds of 
discrimination Social 
security Health 
Care Social 
advantages Education Goods & 
services Housing 
Religion       
Age       
Disability     L   Austria 135 
Sexual Orient.       
Religion L L  L   L  
Age L L L  L   
Disability L L  L  L  Belgium136 
Sexual Or. L  L L  L  
Religion L L  L L  L L  
Age L L L L L  L  
Disability L  L L  L L L Bulgaria 
  
Sexual Or. L  L  L L L L 
Religion L x L x L x L x L x L x 
Age L x L x L x L x L x L x 
Disability L x L x L x L  L  L x Cyprus 
Sexual Or. L x L x L x L x L x L x 
                                                 
134 The national constitutional or legislative protections against discrimination may be weaker than the 
protection provided by Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC (which includes prohibition of all types 
of discrimination, legal standing of interested associations, share of the burden of proof, protection 
against victimisation, etc). In some cases, the national protection may also be subject to certain 
conditions and exceptions. 
135 Information in the table concerns federal legislation only. Meanwhile, the legislation of some Länder 
prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, age, disability and sexual orientation outside the labour market. 
136 Information in the table concerns federal legislation only. Education and housing are regional 
competences. Regional legislation varies according to the Region or Community in question. 
EN 66   EN Key: 
"L" = legislative protection against discrimination 
"C" = constitutional protec tion against discrimination 
"x" = partial protection against discrimination  
Member 
State Grounds of 
discrimination Social 
security Health 
Care Social 
advantages Education Goods & 
services Housing 
Religion (L) (L) (L) L  L (L) 
Age (L) (L) (L) L  L  (L) 
Disability (L) (L) (L) L  L  (L) Czech 
Republic137 
Sexual Or. (L) (L) (L) L L (L) 
Religion     Lx  Lx 
Age       
Disability       Denmark138 
Sexual Or.     L x Lx 
Religion C C C C C C 
Age C C C C C C 
Disability C C C C C C Estonia 
Sexual Or. C C C C C C 
Religion L  L Lx L  Lx Lx 
Age L L  Lx L  Lx Lx 
Disability L  L  Lx L Lx Lx Finland 139 
Sexual Or. L L  Lx L Lx Lx 
                                                 
137 A new law adopted recently, but not yet in force as of 25/4/2008, prohib its discrimination on the 
grounds of sex, race, religion, age, disability and se xual orientation covering the full material remit of 
Directive 2000/43/EC. The remit of the ne w law is indicated between brackets.  
138 Public authorities are subject to the unwritten principle of equality applicable under general 
administrative law. Protection on acce ss to goods and services does not cover strictly private affairs, 
where an individual acts in a non commercial way. 
139 In Finland, laws on social welfare and on rights of a patient provide for a general prohibition of 
discrimination. The criminal code also prohibits discrimination in a wide range of areas, under certain 
conditions. 
EN 67   EN Key: 
"L" = legislative protection against discrimination "C" = constitutional protec tion against discrimination 
"x" = partial protection against discrimination
 
Member 
State Grounds of 
discrimination Social 
security Health 
Care Social 
advantages Education Goods & 
services Housing 
Religion C C C C CL CL  
Age       
Disability L L L L L  L  France140 
Sexual Or. L L L L L L 
Religion L  L  L L  Lx Lx 
Age L  L L  L  Lx Lx 
Disability L L  L  L Lx Lx Germany 141 
  
Sexual Or. L L L L  Lx Lx 
Religion C C C C C C 
Age C C C C C C 
Disability C C C C C C  
Greece  
Sexual Or. C C C C C C 
Religion L  L  L  L  L L  
Age L L L L  L  L 
Disability L  L  L L  L L  Hungary 
  
Sexual Or. L  L L L  L  L 
Religion L  L  L  L  L  L 
Age L  L L  L  L  L 
Disability L L  L L L L Ireland 
 
 
Sexual Or. L L L  L L L 
                                                 
140 In France, the legislation provides  for special rights for disabled peopl e, for example in education, and 
provides for accessibility to pub lic spaces, buildings, tr ansport and online serv ices of the State. 
141 In Germany, protection in access to goods and serv ices concerns only "mass [standard] contracts". 
Protection on housing has limitations; ex: it does not apply to renting by owners who have less than 50 
apartments. 
EN 68   EN Key: 
"L" = legislative protection against discrimination "C" = constitutional protec tion against discrimination 
"x" = partial protection against discrimination
 
Member 
State Grounds of 
discrimination Social 
security Health 
Care Social 
advantages Education Access to 
goods & 
services Housing 
  
Religion L L  L L L  L  
Age       
Disability L  L L  L L  L Italy 
Sexual Or.       
Religion L   L L   
Age L  L    
Disability L  L    Latvia 
Sexual Or.       
Religion C C C L  L  C 
Age    L L   
Disability    L  L   Lithuania 
Sexual Or.    L  L   
Religion L L L L  L L 
Age L L  L  L L L  
Disability L L L L  L L Luxembourg  
 
 
Sexual Or. L  L L  L L  L  
Religion       
Age       
Disability    L L  L Malta 
Sexual Or.       
EN 69   EN Key: 
"L" = legislative protection against discrimination "C" = constitutional protec tion against discrimination 
"x" = partial protection against discrimination
 
Member 
State Grounds of 
discrimination Social 
security Health 
Care Social 
advantages Education Access to 
goods & 
services Housing 
  
Religion  L  L  L L 
Age       
Disability       Netherlands 
Sexual Or.  L   L L L  
Religion  C  L   
Age  C  L   
Disability  C  L    
Poland 
Sexual Or.  C  L   
Religion L L  L  C C C 
Age L L L  C  C  C  
Disability L L  L  C  C  C  Portugal  
Sexual Or. L  L L  C  C  C  
Religion L L L L L  L  
Age       
Disability L L  L L  L L  Romania 
Sexual Or. L  L  L L  L L 
Religion Lx Lx  Lx Lx Lx 
Age Lx  Lx   Lx  Lx  Lx  
Disability Lx  Lx   Lx  Lx  Lx  Slovakia 142 
Sexual Or. Lx  Lx   Lx  Lx  Lx  
                                                 
142 In Slovakia, discrimination based on sexual orientation may covered by the reference to "other status". 
EN 70   EN Key: 
"L" = legislative protection against discrimination "C" = constitutional protec tion against discrimination 
"x" = partial protection against discrimination 
Member 
State Grounds of 
discrimination Social 
security Health 
Care Social 
advantages Education Access to 
goods & 
services Housing 
  
Religion L  L L  L  L  L 
Age L L L L L L 
Disability L L L  L L L Slovenia  
 
 
Sexual Or. L L L L L L 
Religion C C C Lx C C 
Age C C C Lx  C C 
Disability C C C Lx  L  C Spain 
Sexual Or. C C C Lx  C C 
Religion L L  L  L Lx Lx 
Age       
Disability    L Lx Lx Sweden143 
Sexual Or. L  L L L  Lx  Lx  
Religion L L L L  L L  
Age       
Disability L L  L  L L L United 
Kingdom 
Sexual Or. L  L L L L L  
                                                 
143 In Sweden, protection in access to goods and services and housing applies only to commercial 
transactions. 
EN 71   EN Non-exhaustive indication of th e Member States legal protection  (legislative and /or 
constitutional) from different types of discrimination outside the employment sphere  
(covering social security, health  care, social advantages, edu cation, and access to goods and 
services available to the public, includ ing housing, unless specified otherwise) 
Member 
State Legal situation 
Austria Federal law protects disabled people and their close relatives from discrimination in 
consumer protection. Tran sport & buildings have un til 2016 to adapt accessibility. 
Legislation in Carinthia, Salzburg, Tyrol, Upper Austria & Burgenland, Vienna & Styria 
prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, disability, age and sexual orientation in non-
employment fields. Sign language is an  officially recognised language. 
Belgium Legislative protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, age 
and disability exists outside the labour market, except for education and housing which are 
regional competences. Regional laws vary. 
Bulgaria Legislative protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, age 
and disability in all areas outside the labour market. The Protection Against Discrimination 
Act prohibits discrimination in the exercise of any right or freedom provided by the 
Constitution or by the law. 
Cyprus The Constitution provides for general protection against discrimination in the enjoyment of 
economic, social and cultural rights; but age, disability and sexual orientation are not 
explicitly mentioned. Law 13 (III) of 2002 provides that the enjoyment of any right set forth 
by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground; but age, disability and sexual orientation are not mentioned explicitly. Specific legislation provides for equality for disabled 
persons in the provision of goods and services, including education. 
Czech Republic The Charter of F undamental Rights and Freedoms incl udes a general non-discrimination 
clause, but most social, economic and cultural ri ghts the Charter provides for can be invoked 
only within the limits established by the laws implementing them. The School Act, covering 
primary, secondary and higher education prohibits discrimination, based, inter alia, on 
religion or belief and "other status". The Law on consumers has a general clause prohibiting discrimination in provision of goods and services, but with no reference to specified grounds.  
A new law adopted recently, but not yet in force as of 25/4/2008, prohibits discrimination on 
the grounds of sex, race, religion, age, disa bility and sexual orientation covering the full 
material remit of Directive 2000/43/EC. 
Denmark Explicit protection against discrimination exists on grounds of religion and sexual orientation 
in access to goods and services (including housin g) provided in a commercial manner. Public 
authorities are also governed by the unwritten principle of equality applicable under general 
administrative law. 
Estonia Constitutional protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, 
age and disability outside the labour market. 
Finland Laws on social welfare and on rights of a patient provide for a general prohibition of 
discrimination. Discrimination in education is explicitly prohibited on grounds of religion, 
sexual orientation, age and disability. The criminal code prohibits discrimination in a wide 
range of areas, when it is based on religion, age, sexual orientation and state of health, where it is carried out in a trade or profession, servi ce of the general public, or exercise of official 
authority. Within the remit of its competence, Ǻland Islands legislation prohibits 
discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orie ntation, age and disability outside the labour 
market.  
EN 72   EN France The criminal code provides for sanctions of refusal or conditioning of the provision of goods 
and services if it is based, inter alia, on religion, age, disability and sexual orientation. The 
law on disabled people provides for special rights, for example in education, and provides for 
accessibility to public spaces, buildings, transport and online services of the State. 
Germany Legislative protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, age 
and disability applies outside employment, but  in access to goods and services only for 
"mass" (ie standard) contracts". Protection regarding housing has some limitations of scope. 
Greece Constitutional protection agains t discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, 
age and disability in all  areas. 
Hungary Legislative protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, age 
and disability in all areas. 
Ireland Legislative protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, age 
and disability in all areas. 
Italy Legislative protection against discrimination on grounds of disability and religion in all areas. 
Latvia Legislative protection exists against discri mination based on religion in education. Besides, 
discrimination is also prohibited on the grounds of religion, age and disability in social 
security and social advantages. The Constitution provides also for a general principle of 
equality which can be invoked before the courts, but only in relations with the State. 
Lithuania Legislative protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, age 
and disability exists in education and access to  goods and services. The Constitution provides 
for a principle of equality on a list of exhaustive grounds including religion (not age, 
disability and sexual orientation) which can be invoked before the courts. 
Luxembourg Legislative protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, age 
and disability in all areas. 
Malta Protection against discrimination exists only if based on disability and occurs in education 
and access to goods and services (including housing). 
Netherlands Legislative protection against discriminati on outside employment exists only if it is based on 
religion and sexual orientation and occurs in  education and access to goods and services, 
including health care and housing. 
Poland The Constitution contains a general provision of non-discrimination and equal treatment. It 
also provides generally for equal access to h ealth care services. No legislative explicit 
protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, age and disability 
outside the labour market. The sole exception is the Act on Education, which prohibits 
discrimination generally - even if it does not include a separate, explicit non-discrimination provision listing protected grounds.  
Portugal Protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, age and disability 
in all areas. This protection derives partly from constitutional provisions. 
Romania Protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation and disability in 
all areas, but not for age. 
Slovakia Legislative protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, age, disability and sexual 
orientation, in social security, healthcare, education and provision of goods and services, 
including housing, but only in combination with the rights laid down in specific laws. 
Slovenia Legislative protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, age 
EN 73   EN and disability in all areas. 
Spain Protection against discrimination on grounds of  religion, sexual orientation, age and disability 
in all areas. This protection derives primarily from constitutional provisions. The education 
law (on public and state-funded schools) prohibits discrimination, inter alia, on grounds of 
religion, disability or any other personal circ umstance. Legislation on disabled persons 
provides for equality in access to goods and se rvices, as well as for accessibility norms for 
public buildings and space. Sign language is an officially recognised language. 
Sweden Legislative protection against discrimination on grounds of religion and sexual orientation in 
all areas. For disability the protection applies to education and access to goods and services, 
including housing, but does not apply to social protection, health care or social advantages. In 
general, protection against disc rimination in access to goods and services and housing applies 
only to commercial or professional transactions, not to those of a purely private nature 
(between two private individuals). Age discrimination is not covered. 
United 
Kingdom Legislative protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation and 
disability in all areas, but not for age.  
Public authorities are under a duty to combat discrimination based on race, gender or 
disability and promote equality in their policies and services. 
EN 74   EN ANNEX IV: EPEC Study – methodology and effects and impacts of discrimination  
1. Methodology 
EPEC gathered data via desk based research, co untry research of the 27  EU Member States, a 
survey of equality bodies, case studies of se ven MS, participation in conferences, and 
brainstorming meetings with experts. Th ey then assessed the scale and impact of 
discrimination before assessing  the costs and benefits of legislative and non-legislative 
measures. The study gives details of the assu mptions used and the challenges which the 
contractors faced. 
2. Costs of discrimination  
Costs to individuals and society by policy domain 
Policy 
domain Costs to individuals and society 
Education Sexual orientation 
Health problem faced by gay and lesbian pu pils in upper-secondary education due to 
bullying and harassment in school has been estimated to later reduce their earning capacity 
by on average 14.3%. This corresponds to an annual loss of 3,584 euro for an individual, 
and 452 million euro altogether (based on an estimation of 126,000 victims).  
Early school leaving due to harassment in school leads to a reduction of net earning 
prospects by 10,706 euro on average per annum, adding up to 173 million euro (based on 
that 10% of gay or lesbian youth who have been harassed - 16,100 in the age group 15-19 - drops out of school).  
The loss in GDP due to lower participation rate  or qualification leve ls of LGB persons in 
the labour force is estimated to be around 872 million euro (loss in net wage and loss in tax revenue).  
The direct tax revenue foregone due to lower earning capacity of harassed LGB youth with 
health problems is 1,275 euro per person, i.e. 161 million euro in total. The tax revenue foregone due to dropping out equals 76 million euro. 
Disabilities 
The combined wage loss in the EU-25 due to that 3,592,000 severely or moderately 
disabled persons may have achieved a lower level of education than they would if all 
countries were as successful in narrowing the education gap as much as the best performer 
(Germany) is estimated to reach 28 billion euro per annum.  
The lower economic performance (i.e. loss in GDP) due to lower participation rate or 
qualification level of individuals with disabilitie s in the labour force is estimated to add up 
to around 40.3 billion euro per annum.  
Furthermore, the change in the net transfers to individuals with disabilities (benefits minus 
taxes) is estimated to be 12.3 billion eu ro, as individuals with lower educational 
achievement are more likely to take lower-paid jobs. 
Age 
Scholarship not granted to students above 26 may result in a loss of 3,464 euro on average 
EN 75   EN Costs to individuals and society by policy domain 
Policy 
domain Costs to individuals and society 
to an individual. 
Housing Sexual orientation 
A 10% hedonic surplus in housing expenditure of the gay and lesbian is attributed to the 
intention to avoid harassment and degrading treatment. This would correspond to a total of 4.1 billion euro for the gay and lesbian community. 
Disabilities 
For disabilities the key cost that lends itself to monetisation is the hedonic price surplus 
that owners/tenants would enjoy if they lived in amenities on upper floors. Estimating the 
share of wheelchair users affected to be 20%, and the surplus to be 10%, the total loss in 
consumer surplus is around 347 million euro. 
Health Sexual orientation 
For LGB individuals, the total loss in net earni ngs on the grounds of ill-health is 3,584 
euro per person (an average loss of 14.3%); 466 million euro in total. (Around 847,000 people with homo- or bisexual orientation experience some form of discrimination in 
health services; significant health problems occur to 16,900 of them. Another 113,000 
people may face health problems because they avoid going  to the doctor regularly).  
The economic value of life, relevant for those who die because of discrimination at health 
services, is estimated at a conservative 4 million euro. This is not grossed up, as the 
number of individuals affected is not known. 
The loss of GDP as a result of the diminishing workforce (due to the gap in the average 
number of years spent on the labour market between LGB persons and the total 
population) is estimated at 632 million euro. The direct tax revenue foregone due to reduced wage-earning capacity of  gays and lesbians caused by ill-health is 1,275 euro per 
person per annum, i.e. 166 million euro in to tal (contained in the loss of GDP figure). 
Disabilities 8.4 million severely or very severely disabled individuals are estimated to face 
discrimination when accessing health services. Resulting ill-health is cal culated to effect a 
loss of 599 million euro in net wage per year. 
Ill health leads to lower economic performance and a loss of GDP as a result of 
diminishing workforce, estimated at 812 million euro per year. 
The direct tax revenue foregone is estim ated to reach 213 mi llion euro a year. 
Social security Sexual orientation 
Social expenditure on survivors’ benefits is estimated to increase by around 2%, or 2.5 
billion euro, if widowers of same-sex marriag es and partnerships were entitled to such 
benefits. Currently, these are often not granted,  and are seen as the cost of discrimination 
in this area. 
Social services Sexual orientation 
The loss of income - if inaccessible social serv ices prevent mothers w ith small children in 
EN 76   EN Costs to individuals and society by policy domain 
Policy 
domain Costs to individuals and society 
same-sex relationships to enter the labour market - may amount to up to 90.8 million euro. 
Insurance and 
finance Sexual orientation 
Access to health and incapacity  insurance with an annual fee of about 201 million euro 
may be denied for gay and lesbian individuals. 
Disabilities 
Disabled persons are excluded from private health and incapacity insurance contracts 
worth about an estimated 6.45 billion euro in fees. 
EN 77   EN 3. Causal links of discrimination 
DISABILITY  
Discrimination on the ground of disabilities in education: Outline of causal links 
Lower level of 
education.Lower level of income from employment (or entrepreneurship).Lower quality of education at same level of education. No or restricted access to preferred educational establishment (e.g. mainstream schools).Higher risk of unemployment.Lower economic growth (lower consumption and entrepreneurship).
Higher burden on social security funds (medical costs).
Lower level of cohesiveness in society.Wider impacts 
(on society)Impacts 
(on individual)Indirect effects Immediate 
effectsDiscriminatory 
practices
Lack of adaptations in 
schools / at universities / other education possibilities.
Insulting or degrading treatment by staff or other pupils.
Psychological damage.Unable to participate in all activities, e.g. exams or outdoor activities. 
Higher risk of dropping out of school.Disabilities - education
Lower probability to attain secondary or tertiary education.No access to high quality education
Mental health problems and lack of self esteem. Drop outs / early school leavers.Burden on public budget due to lower participation rate or qualification level of disabled persons in labour force. Longer time to finalise studies. 
Deterioting health conditions.
Less contact with persons from peer group, less social networking opportunities
 
Discrimination on the ground of disabilities in health: Outline of causal links 
Wider impacts 
(on society)Impacts 
(on individual)Indirect effects Immediate 
effectsDiscriminatory 
practices
Insulting or degrading 
treatment by staffDisabilities - health
No or limited access to preferred doctor, expert or medical institute. Prolongation of health 
problems.Inability to workLower economic 
growth (lower consumption and entrepreneurship).
Lower quality of health care.No access to optimal health careDecreased consumption
Psychological damageLower level of screening, uptake of preventive measuresDeterioting health conditions.No access to quality health care
Mental health problems and lack of self esteem. Unnoticed and untreated health problems.Insufficient measures taken by staff to spread information about preventive measures / screening to people with e.g. literacy problems.Loss of productive work force. Higher burden on social security funds 
(medical costs).Health problems are 
not quickly diagnosed and treated.
Additional time and extra costs for alternative healthcare.
Insufficient knowledge of staff to deliver appropriate treatment
 
EN 78   EN Discrimination on the ground of disabilities in transport: Outline of causal links 
Wider impacts 
(on society)Impacts 
(on individual)Indirect effects Immediate 
effectsDiscriminatory 
practicesDisabilities - transport
Psychological 
damage.
Deteriorating health conditions.Restricted access to transport.
Insulting or degrading treatment by personnel.Restricted mobility.
Longer waiting times.
Less purchasing power.
Loss of self esteem and confidence.Cost of alternative transport means.Lower level of cohesiveness in society.
Higher burden onsocial security funds (medical costs).Delay (additional time spent waiting), loss of productive time.No access to transport access points (underground etc.).
Refusal by personnel to take on board disabled person (or dog for blind).
Limited number of vehicles that are adapted for disabled.Lower economic growth (lower consumption and loss of productive hours).Having to go by own car instead of public transport.Increased costs.Higher levels of pollution. Unable to use public transport
 
Discrimination on the ground of disabilities in in surance and financial services: Outline of causal 
links 
Wider impacts 
(on society)Impacts 
(on individual)Indirect effects Immediate 
effectsDiscriminatory 
practices
Limited access to 
insurance and financial services due to disability.Disabilities – insurance and financial services
Less spending power. 
Higher burden on social security funds (medical costs).Lower level of cohesiveness in society.
Feeling of social exclusion. 
Stress. Less purchasing power.Lower economic growth.
Economic insecurity (for family).
Mental health problems and lack of self esteem. Deteriorating health conditions.Degrading treatment by staff.Denied access to insurance or financial services due to disability.
Lower entrepreneurship.
Lower purchasing power.No access to private healthcare. 
No access to financial protection. 
Higher premium due to misuse of statistics.Additional time spent searching for alternative services. Unable to travel. No access to high quality healthcare.
No access to life insurance No access to high quality healthcare.Deteriorating health.
EN 79   EN SEXUAL ORIENTATION  
Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in health: Outline of causal links 
Wider impacts 
(on society)Impacts 
(on individual)Indirect effects Immediate 
effectsDiscriminatory 
practices
Insulting or degrading 
treatment by staffSexual orientation - health
No or limited access to public healthcareHigher medical costs.
Less purchasing power.Lower economic growth (lower consumption and entrepreneurship).
Lower quality of health care.No access to optimal health care
Higher probability of certain diseases as problems remain unnoticed or untreated.
No access to preventative health measures, as not covered by medical insurance 
Psychological damageNo awareness of severe physical health risks, such STDs. 
Deterioting health conditions.No access to quality health care
Mental health problems and lack of self esteem. Unnoticed and untreated health problems.No access to religious-based health care organisations 
Knowledge of health risks and diagnosis of health problems is postponed as individual’s life style remains unknown to medical staff
Higher levels of stress when seeking professional healthHigher curative costs
Higher prevalence of certain sexually transmitted diseases. 
Loss of productive work force. Higher burden on social security funds (medical costs).
Higher levels of diseases due to lack of preventative measures.Higher levels of infections due to lack of vaccinations.Seek care at healthcare centres specialising in LGBs.
Longer waiting times.
 
Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in education: Outline of causal links  
Lower level of education.Lower level of income from employment (or entrepreneurship).Lower quality of education at same level of education. No or restricted access to preferred educational establishment (e.g. Catholic institutes) and specific courses).Higher risk of unemployment.Lower economic growth (lower consumption and entrepreneurship).
Higher burden on social security funds (medical costs).
Less contact with persons from peer group, less social networking opportunities.
Lower level of cohesiveness in society.Wider impacts 
(on society)Impacts 
(on individual)Indirect effects Immediate 
effectsDiscriminatory 
practices
Lack of tolerance by 
schools.Lack of LGB issues in curriculum (e.g. biology, health or sexual education courses).
Insulting or degrading treatment by staff or other pupils.
Psychological damage.No awareness of severe physical health risks, such as STDs. 
Higher risk of dropping out of school.Deterioting health conditions.Sexual orientation - education
Lower probability to attain secondary or tertiary education.No access to high quality education.
Higher level of suicide among LGB youth. 
Mental health problems and lack of self esteem. Drop outs get into ‘street life’; prostitution.Burden on public budget due to lower participation rate or qualification level of LGB persons in labour force. 
EN 80   EN Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in goods and services: Outline of causal links 
Higher costs for goods 
and services purchased from alternative providers.Lower consumption
Higher burden on social security funds (unemployment benefits, medical costs)
Lower level of cohesiveness in societyWider impacts 
(on society)Impacts 
(on individual)Indirect effects Immediate 
effectsDiscriminatory 
practices
Access to goods and 
services denied (e.g. entry to bars and restaurants, sauna/health spa facilities denied; rooms for same-sex couples in hotels denied).
Insulting or degrading treatment by retailers, service providers.Psychological damage Deterioting health conditions.Sexual orientation – goods and services
Lower purchasing power.
Loss of self esteem and confidenceSegregation.Reduced access to some goods and services.
Lack of social interaction.StigmatisationGreater perceived stigma in accessing or being refused such services.
Facilities, which are available to heterosexual individuals are denied to homosexuals (e.g. No condom machines in venues where same sex individuals meet, unequal treatment in accessing special offers with airline travel etc.).
Additional time spent finding alternative goods / services
Seek LGB-friendly hotels / bars / restaurants / associations etc.
 
AGE 
Discrimination on the ground of age in health: Outline of causal links 
Lower quality of 
health care.No access to optimal health care. Higher probability of certain diseases as problems remain unnoticed or untreated.Wider impacts 
(on society)Impacts 
(on individual)Indirect effects Immediate 
effectsDiscriminatory 
practices
Insufficient supply of 
additional care services. 
Insulting or degrading treatment by staff.
Psychological damageHigher level of secondary infections due improper additional care.
Deteriorating health conditionsAge – health
No access to quality health care.
Mental health problems and lack of self esteem. Untreated health problems.No/limited access to suitable mental health care.No/limited access to specialist care.
Higher curative costs
Higher burden on social security funds (medical costs)Higher level of secondary infections due improper additional care.
Removal of rights to make decisions about treatment.
Loss of dignity
Older and younger individuals suffer unnecessarily due to insufficient treatmentLess social cohesion
EN 81   EN Discrimination on the ground of age in social services: Outline of causal links  
SegregationHigher costs for 
services purchased from private institutions / companies.
Lack of adequate design and delivery of social services (e.g. do not take account of different mobility levels; services and administrative procedures are not understandable).Lower consumption.
Higher burden on social security funds (unemployment benefits, medical costs).
Lower level of cohesiveness in society.Wider impacts 
(on society)Impacts 
(on individual)Indirect effects Immediate 
effectsDiscriminatory 
practices
Lack of adaptation for 
those who whish to live independently.Lack of funding for older people, both in the community and in residential care.
Insulting or degrading treatment by staff or other users. Psychological damage. Deterioting health conditions.Age – social services
Lack of access to social services
Staff unaware and not trained to respond to particular needs.
Lack of social interactionLower purchasing power.
Loss of self esteem and confidence.Stigmatisation.Greater perceived stigma in accessing such services.
Neglect and abuse in 
elderly care homes. Lack of dissemination and awareness raising of existing services.
Social exclusion
 
Discrimination on the ground of age in insurance and financial services: Outline of causal links  
Wider impacts 
(on society)Impacts 
(on individual)Indirect effects Immediate 
effectsDiscriminatory 
practices
Reduced financial 
protection for older people.Age – insurance and financial services
Less spending power due to lower benefits. 
Higher burden on social security funds (medical costs).Lower level of cohesiveness in society. Feeling of social exclusion. Less purchasing power.Lower economic growth.Economic insecurity.
Mental health problems and lack of self esteem. Deteriorating health conditions.Increased costs of financial services for younger and older people.Limited financial borrowing for younger and older people.
Less spending power due to higher contributionLower entrepreneurship.
Lower purchasing power.Unable to acquire material goods due to reduced financial guarantees.
Decreasing health due to a lack of health insurance coverage.
Higher premium based on supposed higher risks.
EN 82   EN ANNEX V: UN Convention on the Righ ts of Persons with Disabilities  
1. The UN Convention  
The UN Convention on Rights of  Persons with Disabilities a nd its Optional Protocol were 
adopted on 13 December 2006 at the United Nations . On the basis of a negotiation Directive 
adopted by the Council on 24 May 2004, the Europ ean Commission played a central role in 
the negotiation of the Convention.  
Council Decision of 20 March 2007144 authorised the Community to sign the Convention on 
the Rights of Persons with Disa bilities, and issued a declar ation on the Optional Protocol, 
stating that the Council shall reconsider the que stion of signing the Optional Protocol to the 
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is the result of an increasing 
international recognition that the existing UN human rights treaties fa iled to fully protect 
people with disabilities. The pur pose of the Convention is to pr omote, protect and ensure the 
full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with 
disabilities.  
The Convention requires State Parties to iden tify and eliminate obstacles and barriers and 
ensure that persons with disabilities can access their environment, transportation, public facilities and services , and information and communications  technologies. It also grants 
disabled people rights to education, to health, the right to work, the right to an adequate 
standard of living, the right  to participate in polit ical and public lif e, and right to participate in 
cultural life. 
The Convention defines discriminati on on the grounds of disability as: 
"any distinction, exclus ion or restriction on the basi s of disability which has the 
purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all hu man rights and fundamental freedoms in the 
political, economic, social, cultu ral, civil or any other fiel d. It includes all forms of 
discrimination, including denial  of reasonable accommodation". 
"Persons with disabilities" are defined as including those who have long term physical, 
mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their effective participati on in society on an equal basis with others". Furthermore the 
preamble recognises that disability is an evolving  concept and that disab ility results from the 
interaction between persons with impairments a nd attitudinal and environmental barriers that 
hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. 
The Convention includes an Optional Protocol  that provides for a Committee on the Rights 
of Persons with Disabilities, wh ich can receive and consider co mplaints from individuals. It 
also provides for an inquiry procedure giving the Committee au thority to undertake inquiries 
of grave or systematic violations of the C onvention. However, the Committee has no power to 
sanction State Parties nor to give redress to vi ctims of discrimination. Even if a Member State 
ratifies the Optional Protocol, it  is not clear how effective a remedy victims of discrimination 
will have. 
                                                
 
144 ST07661/7 
EN 83   EN 2. State of Play 
The Convention entered into force on 3 May 20 08. 127 States have signed  it, 25 States also 
ratified it and 71 signed the Optional Protocol ; 15 also ratified it (situation as of 15 May 
2008). At EU level 26 Member St ates have signed the Conven tion and 16 signed the Protocol, 
three Member States (Hungary, Spain and Sloven ia) have ratified both the Convention and the 
Protocol. The European Community signed th e Convention but not the Optional Protocol. 
Latvia, which has not yet signed  the Convention have confirmed that they plan to do so in 
2008. 
The Commission is drafting a proposal for a Counc il decisions on the conc lusion (ratification) 
of the Convention and accession to  its Optional Protocol by the Community, in which the 
areas where the Community is competent will be  defined in the declar ation of competences 
pursuant to Article 44.1 of the UN Convention a nnexed to the Decision, as well as the modus 
operanda as to the rela tion of the Community and the Memb er States to one another when 
implementing the Convention and its Optional Prot ocol. The principle of close co-operation 
between the Community and Member States with regard to the conclusion of such 
international agreements, which has been conf irmed by the jurisprudence of the Court of 
Justice145 is important for the ratification procedures for this Convention. The deposit of the 
instruments of ratification by all Members States parties to the agreement and by the 
Community should take place at the same time in order to ensure the unity in the international representation of th e Community and its Member States as well as legal certainty 
and clarity in the divi sion of competences. 
The internal procedures require d in Member States should be actively pursued in order to 
allow for an early deposit of all the instrume nts of ratification. In order to achieve the 
necessary co-ordination for the ratification of the Convention, the instrument of ratification by each Member State should not be deposited until  all other Member States which are parties 
to the agreement and the Community are able to do so together. 
2. What is the relation between the UN Conven tion and new legislation based on Article 
13? 
As such, the UN Convention does not create any obligation for the Community to provide for 
new legislation covering the matters it governs, as it applies to the Community only within the 
limits of already existing Community competence.  Nevertheless if a new directive is adopted 
it will imply new competences for the Community vis à vis the UN Convention.  
The Convention is a Human Rights instrument in which anti discrimination provisions are 
legally binding, whatever the nature of the ri ghts concerned. Once in force, the Convention 
will require its parties, be it the EC or its individual Member States, to take measures to protect against discrimination and to make adap tations for disabled people in certain areas, 
such as education, health services, employ ment, social protection, public housing, culture, 
sport etc.  
Member States will need to ensure that thei r legislation complies with their new obligations 
under the UN Convention. A systematic check is  also being undertaken  to see whether any 
adjustments might have to be made to Co mmunity legislation an d/or policies before 
                                                
 
145 Cf. opinion 1/78, ECR 1978, p. 2151 para. 36 ; opinion 2/91, ECR 1993,1-1061 paras 36 to 38; opinion 
1/94, ECR 1994, 1-5267, para 108. 
EN 84   EN concluding the Convention. Finally, action will be required by the Community institutions 
themselves as the UN Convention provision will be binding for them as well (pursuant to 
article 300.7 of the Treaty establis hing the European Community). 
A Directive would bring EU added value in re lation to the implemen tation UN Convention in 
a number of areas: 
1. Member States have already identified as  a challenge (in the High Level Group Report 
prepared for the Ministerial meeting of 22 Ma y 2008) that there could be legal uncertainty 
throughout the EU coming from pos sible differences in interpre tations of the UN Convention 
principles by various Member States. Th erefore the development of further EC non-
discrimination legislation would improve cohere nce of the legal interpretations of some 
provisions of the UN Convention at the European level. In its Presiden cy conclusions of the 
Ministerial meeting,146 the Slovenian Presidency id entified the compliance of non-
discrimination legislation with the Convention’s provisions as one  of the actions which would 
of common interest and providing added value fo r a quick and effective implementation of the 
UN-Convention. 
2. The UN Convention does not foresee adequate protection/redress for those who claim to be 
victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the UN Convention: 
a) The Convention does not oblige a State Part y to become also a Party to the Optional 
Protocol that provides for competence of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities to receive and c onsider communications from or on behalf of individuals or 
groups of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that 
State Party of the provisions of the Conven tion (article 1 of the Optional Protocol) 
b) The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Di sabilities is not a judicial institution and its 
findings have no binding force in law (the stat ement based on ECJ judgme nt of 17 February 
1998 in Case C-249/96, par 46 on the Human Right Committee) 
Therefore the development of further EC non-di scrimination legislation would provide for a 
uniform and minimal approach to some of  the obligations of the UN Convention.  
                                                 
146 http://www.mddsz.gov.si/fileadmin/ mddsz.gov.si/pageuploa ds/dokumenti__pdf/ns_invalidi_sklepi_220508_en.pdf  
EN 85   EN ANNEX VI: International Instruments  
As well as the recent UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, various other 
international instruments to which the Member States are party deal with discrimination and 
deserve mention.  
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights  provides: 
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured 
without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social  origin, association with a na tional minority, property, birth or 
other status." 
This is not a free standing right to non-disc rimination, and must be pleaded with a 
"substantive" right under the Convention for example the right to education, as was 
successfully argued in the "Ostrava" case
147. 
Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human  Rights , which entered in to force on 1 
April 2005, provides a free standing right to  non-discrimination on grounds of sex, race, 
colour, language, religion, political  or other opinion, national or so cial origin, association with 
a national minority, property, birth or other st atus. It has been signed by 19 Member States148 
of the EU, of whom 5 have ratified (Cyprus, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and 
Romania). 
The 1996 Revised Social Charter of the Council of Europe149 requires its State parties to 
guarantee various economic and social rights (such as the right to social welfare, protection 
from social exclusion, a right to  housing, etc) and provides that: 
"The enjoyment of the rights set forth in  this Charter shall be secured without 
discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political 
or other opinion, national extraction or so cial origin, health, association with a 
national minority, birt h or other status."150. 
The United Nation's International Cove nant on Civil and Political Rights  provides that: 
"All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without an y discrimination to 
the equal protection of the law. In th is respect the law shall prohibit any 
discrimination and guarantee to all persons  equal and effective protection against 
discrimination."151 
The UN International Covenant on Ec onomic, Social and Cultural Rights152 provides that: 
"The States Parties to th e present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights 
enunciated in the present C ovenant will be exercised w ithout discrimination of any 
                                                 
147 D.H.v Czech Republic (Application No 57325/00) 
148 Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia,  Finland, Germany, Greece,  Hungary, Ireland, Italy, 
Latvia, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Spain. 
149 Ratified by all Member States except Germany and Latvia 
150 Article E. 
151 Article 26. 
152 Article 2 (2). 
EN 86   EN kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religi on, political or other opinion, national or 
social origin, property, bi rth or other status." 
Other UN treaties deal with specific types of  discrimination, such as the Convention on the 
Elimination of All Forms of Discriminati on against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention 
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).  
In its General recommendation No. 14 on the definition of discrimination, the CERD 
Committee held that:  
"Non-discrimination, together with equality before the law and equal protection of 
the law without any discrimina tion, constitutes a basic prin ciple in the protection of 
human rights." 
EN 87   EN ANNEX VII: Proposals for indicato rs and sources of information  
Objectives 
 Possible Indicators Entities/methods 
providing the information  
Number of Member States which 
transposed the directive 
Conformity of the transposition with 
the directive 
Number of Member States with an 
Equality Body 
Number of Equality Bodies with 
sufficient resources to fulfil their 
tasks  For the first 4 indicators in this row : 
Member States' governments 
information obligations (on 
transposing legislation and 
implementing measures) 
European Network of legal experts in 
the non-discrimination field 
National Equality Bodies 
(individually or through Equinet) 
National NGOs (through each EU 
umbrella NGO) 
Complaints from individuals Specific objective 
 
 
 
Ensure the existence of an 
effective legal remedy for 
victims of discrimination 
 
Number of court cases 
Number of complaints to the 
Commission 
Number of complaints to NGOs 
Number of complaints to Equality 
Bodies - Member States' governments 
- European Commission 
- National NGOs 
- National Equality Bodies 
 
General objectives 
Ensuring a minimum level 
playing field across the 
Member States  Increased cross-border activities by 
concerned groups NGOs 
Consumer associations  
Equal treatment 
of concerned groups 
in social protection, social 
advantages, education, and 
access to goods & services 
 Percentage of general public 
estimating that discrimination exists 
Percentage of people of the 
concerned groups estimating that 
discrimination exists 
Percentage of people stating that 
they were victims of discrimination 
before and after the existence of new 
legislation 
Percentage of people of the 
concerned groups stating that the 
new legislation improved their life 
(or not)  For all indicators in this row : 
Eurobarometer 
Survey of relevant research on equal 
treatment 
Fundamental Rights Agency