37

It is in those circumstances that the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is the expression “ethnic origin” used in [Directive 2000/43] and in the [Charter] to be interpreted as covering a compact group of Bulgarian citizens of Roma origin such as those living in the “Gizdova mahala” district of the town of Dupnitsa? (2) Does the expression “comparable situation” within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/43 apply to the circumstances of the present case, in which the commercial measuring instruments are positioned in Roma districts of the town at a height of between six and seven metres whereas in other districts not densely populated by Roma they are generally positioned lower than two metres above ground? (3) Is Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/43 to be interpreted so that the positioning of commercial measuring instruments in Roma districts of town at a height of between six and seven metres constitutes less favourable treatment of the population of Roma origin compared to the population of other ethnic origin? (4) On the assumption that there has been less favourable treatment, does that treatment, pursuant to the abovementioned provision, result in the circumstances of the main case in whole or in part from the fact that it affects the Roma ethnic group? (5) Under Directive 2000/43 is a national provision such as Paragraph 1(7) of the Supplementary Provisions of the [ZZD] — according to which any act, action or omission which directly or indirectly prejudices rights or legitimate interests constitutes “unfavourable treatment” — permissible? (6) Is the expression “apparently neutral practice” within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 applicable to the practice of [CHEZ RB] of positioning commercial measuring instruments at a height of between six and seven metres? How should the phrase “apparently neutral” be interpreted — as meaning that the practice is obviously neutral or that it only seems neutral at first glance, in other words, that it is ostensibly neutral? (7) For a finding that there has been indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43, is it necessary that the neutral practice places persons in a particularly less favourable position on the ground of racial or ethnic origin, or is it sufficient that that practice affects only persons of a specific ethnic origin? In that context, under Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 is a national provision such as Article 4(3) of the ZZD — according to which there is indirect discrimination where a person is placed in a more unfavourable position because of the characteristics set out in Article 4(1) (including ethnicity) — permissible? (8) How should the expression “particular disadvantage” within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 be interpreted? Does it correspond to the expression “less favourable treatment” used in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/43, or does it cover only serious, obvious and particularly significant cases of unequal treatment? Does the practice described in the present case amount to a particular disadvantage? If there has been no serious, obvious and particularly significant case of putting someone in a disadvantageous position, is that sufficient to conclude that there has been no indirect discrimination (without examining whether the practice in question is justified, appropriate and necessary in view of attaining a legitimate aim)? (9) Are national provisions such as Article 4(2) and (3) of the ZZD — which for direct discrimination require “less favourable treatment” and for indirect discrimination require “placing in a less favourable position” but which do not, unlike the directive, make a distinction according to the degree of seriousness of the unfavourable treatment concerned — permissible under Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2000/43? (10) Is Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 to be interpreted as meaning that the practice of [CHEZ RB] in question is objectively justified from the point of view of ensuring the security of the electricity transmission network and the due recording of electricity consumption? Is this practice also appropriate in the light of the defendant’s obligation to ensure that consumers have free access to the electricity meter readings? Is that practice necessary when, according to media publications, there are other technically and financially feasible means of securing the commercial measuring instruments?’