Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - The application of Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation [SEC(2008)524]
Date: 2008-06-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: anti-discriminatory measure, application of EU law, employment policy, equal treatment, social policy

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.7.2008 
COM(2008) 225 final/2 

CORRIGENDUM 
Ce document annule et remplace le COM(2008)225 final du 19.6.2008 
Concerne les versions EN/FR/DE (référence DTS sur la page de couverture) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE 
REGIONS 

The application of Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general 
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation 

[SEC(2008)524] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE 
REGIONS 

The application of Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general 
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

On  27  November  2000,  the  Council  adopted  Directive  2000/78/EC  establishing  a  general 
framework  for  equal  treatment  in  employment  and  occupation1.  This  Directive  was  adopted 
under  Article  13  of  the  EC  Treaty,  which  gave  the  Council  competence  to  take  action  to 
combat  discrimination  on  grounds  of  sex,  racial  and  ethnic  origin,  religion  and  belief, 
disability, age and sexual orientation. 

Directive 2000/78/EC had to be transposed into national law by 2 December 2003 in EU-15, 
by  1  May  2004  in  EU-10  and  by  1  January  2007  in  Bulgaria  and  Romania2,  with  the 
possibility  of  up  to  three  additional  years  to  transpose  age  and  disability  provisions.  The 
Commission  is  currently  examining  all  national  transposition  measures  to  ensure  that  the 
Directive is correctly implemented. Where the Commission considers that this is not the case, 
it will use its legal powers to bring the national legislation into line with the Directive. 

In  accordance  with  Article  19  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  had  to  communicate  to  the 
Commission  the  information  necessary  for  this  report.  The  Commission  consulted  social 
partners  as  well  as  civil  society  organisations.  The  Commission  has  also  taken  into  account 
the positions taken by the European Parliament3. 

The aim of this report is not to give a detailed account of transposition of all the provisions of 
the  Directive  in  Member  States,  but  rather  to  describe  certain  aspects  that  seem  to  the 
Commission particularly problematic or important. The annexed table on the transposition of 
the  Directive  aims  to  provide  a  snapshot  of  the  current  state  of  play  in  implementing  the 
Directive4. 

1 
2 

3  

4 

OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16. 
As legal analysis of the legislation in Bulgaria and Romania is ongoing, this report does not take into 
account the situation in these two countries. 
As  expressed  in  particular  in  European  Parliament  resolution  of  20  May  2008  on  progress  made  in 
equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the EU (the transposition of Directives 2000/43/EC and 
2000/78/EC) (2007/2202(INI))  
References  to  the  situation  in  Member  States  are  purely  factual  (based  on  the  situation  as  at  15 
December 2007) and are not meant to express a definitive analysis by the European Commission on the 
compatibility of the legislation with the Directive 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

THE IMPACT OF DIRECTIVE 2000/78/EC 

Directive  2000/78/EC  is  innovative  in  many  ways.  It  prohibits  discrimination  on  the  new 
grounds  of  religion,  sexual  orientation,  age  and  disability.  Regarding  discrimination  on 
grounds  of  disability,  a  ‘reasonable  accommodation’  obligation  is  introduced  concerning 
disabled  persons.  Although  some  of  the  basic  concepts  already  existed  under  national  law 
when Member States transposed the Directive, transposition relating to some grounds, such as 
age and sexual orientation, proved delicate. Mentioned below are some of the specific issues 
which  arose  in  transposing  the  Directive  with  regard  to  the  four  grounds  of  discrimination 
which it tackles: sexual orientation, religion or belief, age and disability. 

Sexual Orientation 

The prohibition of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation was new for nearly all 
Member  States,  which  had  to  provide  legal  protection  in  this  area  for  the  first  time. 
Discrimination based on sexual orientation is now prohibited in all Member States. In most of 
Member States, there are few or no examples of cases of discrimination on grounds of sexual 
orientation  being  brought  before  the  courts.  The  fact  that  this  is  a  new  legal  area  in  most 
Member States can explain this situation. This can be explained as well by the reluctance of 
complainants to make their sexual orientation public, in a context where discrimination based 
on  sexual  orientation  is  still  considered  by  many  Europeans  to  be  widespread  and  a  taboo 
issue in their society5. 

At European  level, a  case has recently  been  decided by the European Court of Justice for a 
preliminary ruling on whether a partner in a same-sex registered partnership must be treated 
in the same way as a spouse in a heterosexual marriage with regard to the right to a survivor's 
pension  under  an  occupational  pension  scheme6.  Since  the  Barber  case7,  occupational 
pensions should be considered as ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 141 of the EC Treaty 
and  therefore  fall  under  Community  non-discrimination  law  (in  the  present  case,  Directive 
2000/78/EC).   While questions of marital  status and  registered partnerships remain a matter 
for  national  law,  the  Court  ruled  in  the  Maruko  case8  that  Directive  2000/78  precludes 
legislation  under  which,  after  the  death  of  his  life  partner,  the  surviving  partner  does  not 
receive  a  survivor’s  benefit  equivalent  to  that  granted  to  a  surviving  spouse,  even  though, 
under national law, life partnership places persons of the same sex in a situation comparable 
to that of spouses so far as concerns that survivor’s benefit. The Court added that it is for the 
national  referring  court  to  determine  whether  a  surviving  life  partner  is  in  a  situation 
comparable to that of a spouse who is entitled to the survivor’s benefit provided for under the 
occupational pension scheme at stake in the case. 

Religion or belief 

5 

6 
7 
8  

According to the Eurobarometer Report on Discrimination (January 2007), around half of Europeans 
consider  discrimination  based  on  sexual  orientation  to  be  widespread  and  to  be  a  taboo  topic  in  their 
country 
(see: 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/eyeq/uploaded_files/documents/Eurobarometer_report_en_2007
.pdf). 
Case C-267/06, Tadao Maruko, Judgment of 1 April 2008. 
Case C-262/88, Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group, Judgement of 17 May 1990. 
Case Tadao Maruko, quoted above, paragraph 73. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief has been transposed in all 
Member  States.  However,  a  majority  of  Member  States  do  not  define  the  terms  in  their 
legislation. The delimitation of ‘religion’ and ‘belief’ may in some cases prove problematic, 
in particular where it can be linked to ethnicity, either because a religious group is considered 
to  have  an  ethnic  character,  or  because  members  of  a  religion  belong  predominantly  to 
particular ethnic groups9. 

Article  4(2)  permits  a  specific  exception  to  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  in  the  case  of 
churches and other organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief. This would allow 
such  bodies  to  choose  a  person  of  the  same  religion  or  belief  for  a  job  where  being  of  that 
religion  or  belief  is  a  genuine,  legitimate  and  justified  occupational  requirement.  This 
exception only allows for different treatment on the grounds of religion or belief, and cannot 
be used to justify discrimination on another ground, for example sexual orientation. It should 
also be clearly linked with the nature of the activities carried out. 

A number of Member States have adopted provisions in national law in line with Article 4(2) 
of the Directive. Some countries have provided exceptions that may go beyond the strict terms 
of the Directive or which remain ambiguous. Other Member States have chosen not to include 
any ‘Article 4(2) exception’10. 

National case law arising since the adoption of the Directive has highlighted conflicts between 
employee dress codes and manifestations of religious belief. Some of these cases have been 
treated as human rights matters (raising issues of freedom of religious expression) rather than 
discrimination  cases,  but  they  indicate  that  this  area  is  likely  to  be  a  sensitive  issue  in 
implementing the Directive. 

Age 

With the exception of one Member State, legislation now forbids discrimination based on age 
in all Member States, even though the great majority of Member States did not have existing 
general legislation against age discrimination.  

The  main  issue  is  to  ensure  that  national  legislation  is  effectively  brought  into  line  with 
Directive.  While  the  new  legislation  banning  age  discrimination  is  supposed  to  take 
precedence over laws or collective agreements which are discriminatory, most of the previous 
rules  on  age  distinctions  remain  in  place.  Only  a  few  Member  States  have  carried  out 
comprehensive surveys of their laws concerning age distinctions. 

Assessment of the compatibility of existing (and future) laws as regards age has to be based 
on the ‘justification test’ of Article 6 of the Directive, which says that distinctions based on 
age  will  not  constitute  discrimination  if  they  are  objectively  and  reasonably  justified  by  a 
legitimate  aim (which includes  legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational 
training objectives), and if the means used are proportionate. 

9 

10 

For  example,  the  UK  House  of  Lords  has  considered  that  religion  can  be  an  element  in  defining 
ethnicity:  in  the  Mandla  case,  the  Sikh  community,  while  being  based  on  a  particular  religion,  was 
defined as an ‘ethnic group’ for the purpose of the Race Relations Act (Mandla v. Dowell Lee [1983] 2 
AC 548). 
CZ,  EE,  FR,  LT,  PT,  FI,  SE  do  not  provide  in  their  laws  for  such  exception  (though  there  may  be 
special regulations governing some recruitments by religious institutions). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Most  Member  States  have  adopted  general  legal  provisions  inspired  by  Article  6  of  the 
Directive, which can thus serve as a test against which to whether existing age rules comply 
with the Directive. Some Member States provide for general exceptions to age discrimination 
in their national law which are broader than the ‘justification test’ of Article 6. On the other 
hand,  some  Member  States  have  not  transposed  the  Article  6  exception  as  such11:  in  the 
absence  of  such  a  ‘justification  test’,  it  may  be  more  difficult  to  assess  the  compatibility  of 
existing (and future) rules on age under national law. 

In most Member States, national rules contain various age requirements which therefore need 
to  be  evaluated  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  in  the  light  of  Article  6.  These  rules  include  age 
requirements for access to jobs (in particular in the public sector) or to vocational training, as 
well as age limits for exercising some jobs (again in particular in the public sector). Almost 
every Member State has some legislation which aims to protect young and older employees. 

In the Mangold case12, a German law allowed workers over 52 to be hired on a succession of 
short-term contracts, in order to encourage recruitment by employers. The European Court of 
Justice held that the aim of increasing the employability of older workers was legitimate, but 
the measure did not respect the principle of proportionality, as it was deemed to be too wide 
in scope and the aim could have been achieved in a less discriminatory way. In the Palacios 
de la Villa case13, the European Court of Justice found that rules on age did not need to be 
explicitly justified to be valid, but the measure at issue had to be objectively and reasonably 
justified in the context of national law by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and 
the labour market. Both cases give some indication as regards the type of ‘justification test’ 
required:  even  if  national  authorities  have  broad  discretion  as  to  social  policy  choices,  it  is 
essential to ensure in each particular case that the measure is suited and proportionate to the 
aim  (for  example  by  avoiding  measures  that  rely  solely  on  age  and  by  relying  on  other 
relevant criteria as well). 

Another key issue is retirement. According to Recital 14 of the Directive , national provisions 
concerning  retirement  ages  do  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  Directive.  National  practices 
vary  greatly,  ranging  from  no  national  compulsory  retirement  age  to  Member  States  which 
permit compulsory retirement by public and private employers at a specific age. In a number 
of  Member  States,  retirement  at  a  certain  age  is  obligatory,  so  a  person  working  beyond 
retirement  age  may,  for  example,  no  longer  enjoy  protection  against  unfair  dismissal.  In 
Palacios de la Villa, the European Court of Justice dealt with the case of a worker who was 
dismissed when reaching the legal retirement age of 65 on the basis of a collective agreement 
allowed under national law. According to the Court, while Member States have competence to 
fix retirement age, its application through termination of the employment contract falls within 
the scope of the Directive and has therefore to pass the ‘test’ of Article 6 of the Directive. 

Disability 

The prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of disability has two aspects: the first is the 
ban  on  discrimination  on  grounds  of  disability  (similar  to  the  other  grounds  covered  in  the 
Directive).  The  second  and  most  important  aspect  is  the  positive  duty  of  ‘reasonable 

11 
12 
13 

EE, IE, HU, PL, UK. 
Case C-144//04, Mangold, Judgement of 22 November 2005. 
Case C-411/05, Palacios de la Villa, Judgement of 16 October 2007. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
accommodation’  in  favour  of  disabled  persons  as  an  integral  part  of  the  equal  treatment 
principle. 

The first part has been transposed in all Member States. The only problem that has arisen is 
the  definition  of  disability.  The  Directive  does  not  define  disability  and  about  half  of  the 
Member States did not include a specific definition (although most have a definition for social 
security  purposes).  The  issue  of  whether  a  person  who  was  ill  could  rely  on  the  protection 
against discrimination on grounds of disability was referred to the European Court of Justice 
by a Spanish court in the Chacón Navas case14. The Court held that ‘sickness’ was not similar 
to ‘disability’ and went on to explain that ‘disability’, in the sense of the Directive, had to be 
given  a  uniform  interpretation.  The  Court  held  that  ‘the  concept  of  disability  must  be 
understood as referring to a limitation which results  from  physical,  mental or  psychological 
impairments and which hinders the participation of the person concerned in professional life’. 

One of the most significant innovations within the Directive is a duty on employers to provide 
‘reasonable accommodation’ to enable access to work for persons with a disability. The duty 
of reasonable accommodation means that the employer must take steps to allow a person who 
is suitably qualified for the job, apart from his or her disability, to be able to actually take up 
the job, advance in it and undertake training. However, the employer is not expected to bear 
an unreasonable burden. Such a burden is not considered unreasonable where Member States 
provide grants or subsidies to employers in respect of expensive adjustments. 

the  expense  of 

Although the concept of reasonable accommodation was often new, most Member States have 
transposed this obligation. A number of Member States continue to regulate the employment 
of disabled people through quota systems or reserved employment. This should not, however, 
be  at 
individual  right  of  non-discrimination  and  reasonable 
accommodation. Some Member States have not included the concept in their national law at 
present  or  have  done  so  inadequately  (for  example,  limiting  the  obligation  of  reasonable 
accommodation  to  employees  already  under  contract  or  to  severely  disabled  persons)15. 
Where national provisions exist, these vary considerably from Member States which provide 
for a basic duty, but give few details on how this should be implemented, to those with more 
extensive guidance on its practical application. 

the 

3. 

GOING  BEYOND  MINIMUM  REQUIREMENTS:  TOWARDS  A  SINGLE 
EQUALITY APPROACH 

Though  Directive  2000/78/EC  applies  only  to  the  fields  of  employment,  occupation  and 
vocational  training,  in  a  number  of  Member  States  protection  from  discrimination  —  on 
grounds  of  age,  disability,  religion  and  sexual  orientation  —  is  more  extensive.  In  these 
States,  a  single  equality  approach  has  been  chosen,  whereby  a  similar  level  of  protection 
applies to the various grounds of discrimination. In these cases, the scope of protection for all 
grounds  is  similar  to  the  one  provided  for  under  the  Race  Directive  (2000/43/EC)  with  the 
protection from discrimination extended to social protection and goods and services. 

Most  Member  States  have  thus  gone  beyond  the  requirements  of  Directive  2000/78/EC  by 
applying a similar protection to most or all grounds of discrimination. While some Member 

14 
15 

Case C-13/05, Chacón Navas, Judgement of 11 July 2006. 
DE, IT (protection for some disabled people only), HU. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
States  treat  all  grounds  of  discrimination  in  a  similar  manner16,  others  go  beyond  the 
requirements of the Directive, but not on all grounds, or have a more limited material scope 
on some grounds. 

Similarly, in most Member States, the equality bodies that have been established under Article 
13 of Directive 2000/43/EC (in order to protect against discrimination on grounds of race and 
ethnic origin) also act as bodies responsible for cases of discrimination on grounds of religion 
or  belief,  age,  disability  and  sexual  orientation  (thus  going  beyond  the  requirements  of 
Directive  2000/78/EC,  which  does  not  require  the  establishment  of  such  bodies).  The 
dominant model is one where the equality body is a dedicated institution specialising in equal 
treatment issues and dealing with all grounds of discrimination17. Some Member States have 
chosen  an  existing  body  dealing  with  general  human  rights  issues  (in  general,  an 
Ombudsman) to address discrimination issues, covering all grounds of discrimination18. Only 
a  minority  of  Member  States  have  chosen  to  have  an  equality  body  dealing  with  race  and 
ethnic origin only19. 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 

Positive Action 

Article 7 of the Directive allows Member States to adopt specific measures to compensate for 
disadvantages linked to any of the grounds covered, with a view to ensuring full equality in 
practice. 

The  majority  of  Member  States  allow  for  positive  action  measures  and  all  have  specific 
legislation  in  place  as  regards  disability20.  While  the  exact  scope  for  positive  action  will  be 
clarified through case law, this trend shows that the concept of positive action is now largely 
accepted within the European Union. 

A number of states have introduced legal duties to promote equality. In some cases, there are 
broad obligations to advance equality in national constitutions. In other national legislations, 
more  specific  obligations  have  been  included. In  Finland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  detailed 
obligations exist for public authorities to promote equality on grounds of race, disability and 
gender. In Sweden, employers are compelled to take measures aimed at ensuring equality as 
regards ethnic background. 

Information and Dialogue 

The Directive provisions on dissemination of information and social dialogue appear to have 
experienced  the  least  formal  implementation,  and  have  been  met  with  the  most  varied 
response within Member States. 

Few Member States have introduced legal requirements to carry out such dissemination and 
consultations.  Such  actions  have  generally  been  carried  out  in  an  ad  hoc  manner,  with 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

For example in BE, DE, IE, LU, HU, NL, SI, FI. 
BE, DE, IE, FR, LT, LU (as per the law, not yet in place), HU, AT, SI, UK. 
CY, EE, EL, LV, PL, SK. 
DK, IT, MT, PT, FI. 
Only  EE,  FR,  IT,  LV,  LT,  SK  do  not  provide  for  the  possibility  of  positive  action  (disability  being 
generally an exception, as special measures in favour of disabled people are lawful). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member  States  using  existing  channels  of  consultation,  in  particular  with  social  partners21. 
National  equality  bodies  often  have  such  tasks  as  part  of  their  mandate.  The  process  of 
transposing  the  Directive  has  also  been  the  occasion  for  an  intensified  debate  on 
discrimination issues. 

Procedural issues: burden of proof and sanctions 

A  key  element  to  ensure  fair  consideration  of  discrimination  claims  is  the  shifting  of  the 
burden of proof before the courts or other competent authorities, as provided for in Article 10 
of the Directive. The burden of proof is shifted when the person claiming to be the victim of 
discrimination  can  establish  a  presumption  of  discrimination:  in  this  case,  it  is  for  the 
respondent to prove that there has been no discrimination. Most Member States have inserted 
such a provision in their national law, with a few not having transposed fully this provision22. 

The low volume of case law on discrimination coming through in most Member States shows, 
on  the  one  hand,  that  the  Directive  has  not  given  rise  to  excessive  law  suits.  On  the  other 
hand, it could indicate as well that there may be a number of obstacles to justice, both actual 
and  perceived.  Awareness  of  rights  by  potential  victims  of  discrimination  remains  low  in 
many countries23.  

A  number  of  barriers  to  justice  in  matters  of  discrimination  have  been  identified.  The 
protection against victimisation is essential to ensure that they do not suffer from retaliation, 
when  bringing  a  case  to  court.  The  transposition  of  this  provision  remains  incomplete  in  a 
number of Member States. 

All  Member  States  provide  some  sort  of  sanctions,  of  an  administrative,  civil  or  penal 
character. However, the level of protection appears to be uneven, with some Member States 
providing for penal sanctions which include imprisonment and no limitations on the amount 
of civil damage, while others provide only for fines of a limited amount as well as ceilings on 
the level of damages that can be granted. 

Other  problems  with  access  to  justice  may  limit  the  possibility  to  seek  legal  redress  in 
discrimination  cases:  access  to  legal  aid,  short  time  limits  for  bringing  a  case  to  court 
(sometimes  only  a  few  days),  the  length,  cost  and  complexity  of  the  procedure,  which  may 
deter people from pursuing court cases. 

The  above  elements  show  the  need  for  a  clear  and  specific  framework  for  victims  of 
discrimination,  both  in  terms  of  procedure  and  compensation.  It  shows  the  importance  of 
appropriate  institutional  support  that  can  be  provided  either  by  specialised  bodies,  such  as 
equality bodies, or NGOs. 

The existence of sanctions which are dissuasive, effective and proportionate is of paramount 
importance.  The  Commission  will  undertake  a  comparative  study  on  the  level  of  sanctions 

21 

22 

23 

In CZ, DK, LT, MT, PL, PT, SK, SE and UK general structures for social dialogue may be used for 
dialogue on equality issues. 
EE, IT, LT, PL have not yet correctly transposed provisions on burden of proof. MT has done so with 
the exception of disability. 
According  to  the  Eurobarometer  Report  on  Discrimination  (January  2007),  less  than  one  third  of 
(see: 
Europeans 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/eyeq/uploaded_files/documents/Eurobarometer_report_en_2007
.pdf). 

are  victims  of  discrimination 

aware  of 

rights 

their 

they 

are 

if 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  length  of  time  limits  in  each  Member  State  in  2008  in  order  to  assess  whether  this  is 
effectively the case in all Member States. 

5. 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 

While  Directive  2000/43/EC  protects  from  discrimination  on  grounds  of  racial  or  ethnic 
origin  in  a  wide  range  of  areas  outside  the  sphere  of  employment  (education,  social 
protection,  health  care,  access  to  goods  and  services,  housing),  this  is  not  the  case  for 
Directive  2000/78/EC  which  is  limited  to  employment,  occupation  and  vocational  training. 
Responding  to  concerns  expressed  by  the  European  Parliament  and  civil  society,  the 
Commission  announced  in  2005  that  it  would  carry  out  a  study  into  the  relevance  and  the 
feasibility of possible new initiatives to complement the current legal framework24. 

The  results  of  study,  completed  in  2006,  showed  that  while  most  countries  provide  legal 
protection in  some  form that  goes beyond the  current EC requirements in most of the  areas 
examined, there was a good deal of variety between countries as to the degree and nature of 
the protection. 25.   

In accordance with its work programme for 200826 which foresees the adoption of a proposal 
for  a  Directive  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  outside  employment,  the 
Commission is now preparing a legislative initiative. The starting point for this initiative is the 
fact that the level of protection from discrimination based on religion or belief, age, disability 
or  sexual  orientation  is  lower  than  that  in  place  for  discrimination  based  on  race.  In  the 
preparation  of  this  initiative,  the  Commission  has  been  careful  to  take  into  account  issues 
related to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.  

CONCLUSION 

Directive  2000/78/EC  constitutes  a  major  step  forward  in  the  fight  against  discrimination 
across the EU. For most Member States, the transposition of Directive 2000/78/EC required 
extensive changes to existing legislation, covering new grounds of discrimination. 

The transposition of the Directive can be considered a success overall, as all Member States 
have  enacted  anti-discrimination  legislation  covering  all  the  grounds  of  the  Directive, 
covering  areas  which  were  new  in  many  countries.  In  most  Member  States,  the  legal 
framework  can  be  considered  to  be  adequate,  actual  implementation  being  the  major 
challenge. 

A particular challenge is enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. In this respect, the shifting 
of  the  burden  of  proof  before  the  courts,  dissuasive  sanctions  and  the  existence  of  support 
institutions,  in  particular  equality  bodies  fully  empowered  to  carry  out  their  tasks,  are  all 
essential elements of a proper anti-discrimination framework. 

The Commission recognises also that legislation alone is not enough to prevent discrimination 
and  to  promote  equality.  Combining  properly  implemented  and  enforced  legislation  with 

24 

25 
26  

European  Commission,  ‘Non-discrimination  and  equal  opportunities:  a  framework  strategy’, 
COM(2005) 224. 
See text: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/public/pubst_en.htm 
COM(2007) 640 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
complementary policy measures at national and EU level is the key to reducing discrimination 
on grounds of religion or belief, age, disability and sexual orientation. 

EN 

10 

   EN