Country report : non-discrimination : France 2016.
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: France, age discrimination, anti-discriminatory measure, discrimination based on disability, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, national law, religious discrimination, report, sexual discrimination, social policy

France 

2016 

Including summaries in 
English, French and 
German 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate D — Equality 
Unit JUST/D1 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Country report  

Non-discrimination 

France 

Sophie Latraverse  

Reporting period 1 January 2015 – 31 December 2015 

2016 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-47000-4   

doi:10.2838/994903 

DS-04-16-680-3A-N 

© European Union, 2016 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – France – 2016 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 5 
RÉSUMÉ ............................................................................................................ 13 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ........................................................................................ 22 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 31 
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 33 
1 
THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION .................................................... 34 
2 
2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered ................................ 34 

2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the 

directives ................................................................................. 34 
2.1.2  Multiple discrimination ............................................................... 37 
Assumed and associated discrimination ....................................... 38 
2.1.3 
2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) ...................................................... 38 
2.2.1 
Situation testing ....................................................................... 40 
Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) ................................................... 42 
Statistical evidence ................................................................... 44 
2.3.1 
2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) ...................................................................... 47 
2.5 
Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) ................................................ 49 
2.6  Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 Directive 

2.3 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 50 
PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE ............................................................ 59 
3.1  Personal scope ..................................................................................... 59 

3.1.1 

3.1.2 

EU and non-EU nationals (Recital 13 and Article 3(2) Directive 
2000/43 and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) ........... 59 
Protection against discrimination (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) ..... 59 
3.2  Material scope ...................................................................................... 60 
Employment, self-employment and occupation ............................. 60 

3.2.1 
3.2.2  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to 

3.2.3 

3.2.4 

occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and 
promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the 
professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a)) ........................................ 61 
Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals 
(Article 3(1)(c)) ........................................................................ 62 
Access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational 
training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including 
practical work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) ................................... 63 

3.2.5  Membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or 

3.2.6 

employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular 
profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) ........................................................................ 64 
Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 
3(1)(e) Directive 2000/43) ......................................................... 64 
Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) .................... 65 
Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) ............................... 66 
Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the 
public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) .................................... 71 
3.2.10  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) ................................. 72 
EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................. 76 
4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) .................. 76 
4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

3.2.7 
3.2.8 
3.2.9 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 76 

4.3  Armed forces and other specific occupations (Article 3(4) and Recital 18 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 77 
4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) ................................................... 77 
4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) ....................... 79 
4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) .................................... 80 

3 

3 

4 

 
 
 
4.7  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 81 
4.7.1  Direct discrimination ................................................................. 81 
4.7.2 

Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with 
caring responsibilities ................................................................ 83 
4.7.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements ................................... 84 
4.7.4  Retirement ............................................................................... 84 
4.7.5  Redundancy ............................................................................. 87 
4.8  Public security, public order, criminal offences, protection of health, protection 
of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 2(5), Directive 2000/78) ......... 88 
4.9  Any other exceptions ............................................................................. 88 
POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 
2000/78) .................................................................................................. 89 
REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT ................................................................. 92 
6.1 
Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, Article 
9 Directive 2000/78) ............................................................................. 92 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 98 
6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78).. 99 
6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) .... 100 
6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) ........................................................................................... 100 

5 

6 

7 

8 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) ................................................................................................ 103 
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES...................................................................... 109 
8.1  Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social partners109 
8.2  Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78).... 112 
9 
COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ..................................................... 113 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES ..................................................................... 116 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES ................................................ 117 
11.1  Potential breaches of the directives (if any) ............................................ 117 
11.2  Other issues of concern ....................................................................... 118 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2015 ............................................................ 125 
12.1  Legislative amendments ...................................................................... 125 
12.2  Case law ............................................................................................ 125 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION ... 131 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ..................................... 135 

4 

 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1. Introduction 

The  key  to  the  French  legal  approach  to  racism  and  discrimination  is  based  on  the 
abstract  universalistic  formal  concept  of  equality,  enshrined  in  a  range  of  instruments, 
including  the  Constitutions  of  1946  and  1958.  The  resulting  legal  framework  has 
developed  along  two  complementary  lines:  the  condemnation  of  inequality  based  on 
‘origin’, on the one hand, and the parallel refusal to use the criteria of ‘origin’ for policy 
and administrative purposes, even as regards the fight against discrimination (confirmed 
by the Constitutional Council).  

In a decision of 15 November 2007, for the first time, the Constitutional Council explicitly 
endorsed  the  refusal  by  French  doctrine  to  recognise  the  concepts  of  ethnic  origin  or 
race, as legal or administrative or research categories, on the basis of which differential 
treatment  could  be  evaluated.1  Any  approach  relating  to  origin  must  be  based  on 
objective  indications,  such  as  nationality  of  the  parents  and  grandparents,  in  order  to 
objectivise the construction of comparative categories.  

Even if there is no constitutional text expressly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of 
age, disability, health or sexual orientation, according to the Constitutional Council the 
list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Constitution is an open one. 

In terms of public policy, the concept of disability was renewed with the adoption of Law 
no. 2005-102 of 11 February 2005, which focuses  on integration in all areas  of life and 
any  decrees  to  enforce  these  principles  in  the  workplace,  access  to  schools,  urban 
renovation  and  public  support  and  creates  employment  quotas  in  both  the  private  and 
public  sectors.  The  deadline  for  adaptations  to  ensure  access  to  public  places,  initially 
scheduled  for  1  January  2015,  was  postponed  by  the  legislative  Accessibility  Timetable, 
establishing  an  implementation  deadline  that  can  extend  from  three  months  to  five 
years.2 

The Roma population in France comprises French citizens, the Travellers, who represent 
95  %  of  this  population  (approximately  700 000  people)  and  foreign  Roma,  who  are 
mostly  migrants  from  Romania  and  Bulgaria  and  are  estimated  to  number  20  000.  The 
problems they  experience and their  relations with the public services  are  very different. 
Until recently, public awareness of the situation of the Traveller population was very low. 
Because most social rights are managed on the basis of the individual’s link to a place of 
residence,  all  French  citizens  who  pursue  a  travelling  way  of  life  (including  Roma  and 
non-Roma)  have  a  specific  legal  and  administrative  status.  Roma  travellers  constitute 
80 % of this administrative category. The regular inspections and limitation of access to 
the  right  to  vote  entailed  by  this  special  status  were  quashed  by  the  Constitutional 
Council  in  a  decision  of  5  October  2012  and  a  decision  of  28  March  2014  by  the  UN 
Committee  for  Human  Rights.3  Undertakings  by  the  former  Government  to  amend  Law 
No. 69-3 of 3 January  1969 governing this status have been followed up by the vote in 
first reading by the National Assembly of a legislative proposal no. 1610 on 9 June 2015, 
which has not yet been presented to the Senate.  

1   Constitutional Council, 2007-557, 15 November 2007. Available at: http://www.conseil-

constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-
1959/2007/2007-557-dc/decision-n-2007-557-dc-du-15-novembre-2007.1183.html (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

2   France, Law No. 2014-789 of 10 July 2014 authorising the Government to adopt legislative measures for the 

implementation of accessibility of public places (Articles 11 and 19 to 22). 

3   See: www.fnasat.asso.fr/dossiers%20docs/condamnation%20ONU/Docs/ComOnu_20140506_CCPR.pdf 

(accessed 6 September 2016). 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The settled Roma population lives both in public housing and on privately owned land. In 
2000, the Besson Law No. 2000-614 on the accommodation of the travelling population, 
re-imposed  on  all  departments  the  requirement  to  adopt  accommodation  schemes  for 
Travellers, renewing requirements introduced into the law in 1990. The reluctance of the 
authorities to implement parking sites and reinforced enforcement of parking prohibitions 
creates  a  situation  where  Travellers  often  have  no  place  to  settle,  even  for  a  few  days. 
This situation could be deemed to be a de facto non-compliance with respect of Directive 
2000/43/EC with regard to housing rights. In a case relating to the eviction of Travellers 
from  their  land  on  the  ground  of  urban  planning  regulations  forbidding  parking,  the 
European Court of Human Rights condemned France in 2013 for a violation of Article 8 of 
the Convention.4 

With regard to migrant Roma, since the June 2012 elections, the Minister of the Interior 
has  intensified  the  previous  policy  of  enforcement  of  land  occupation  restrictions. 
Evictions of Travellers and Roma from illegally occupied land and orders to leave French 
territory  have  virtually  doubled.  In  2013,  21 000  people  were  evicted  from  illegally 
occupied  campsites  and  approximately  13 000  in  2014.  Meanwhile,  the  migrant  Roma 
population remains stable and is still estimated at 20 000.  

2. Main legislation 

In private law, the legal regime relating to discrimination is to be  found in statutes and 
codified  law  i.e.  the  Labour  Code  (LC),  the  Penal  Code  (PC)  and  the  Civil  Code  (CC). 
Administrative  law,  on  the  other  hand,  is  mostly  jurisprudential  and  based  on  the 
implementation of a formal theory of equality. 

Directive 2000/43/EC was first transposed by the Law of 16 November 2001, the Law on 
Social  Modernisation  No.  2002-73  of  17  January  2002,  with  the  Law  of  21  December 
2004  creating  the  equality  body  (Haute  autorité  de  lutte  contre  les  discriminations  et 
pour  l’égalité,  HALDE)  completing  the  transposition  of  Directive  2000/43/EC.  General 
provisions  prohibiting  discrimination  have  always  been  transversal,  providing  a  uniform 
legal  regime,  not  only  for  the  grounds  covered  by  Article  19(1)  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  but  also  physical  appearance,  last  name,  customs, 
health,  political  opinions,  trade  union  activities  and  involvement  in  mutual  benefit 
organisations,  family  situation  and  genetic  characteristics.  On  15  May  2008,  the 
Parliament adopted Law No. 2008-496 of 27 May 2008 correcting the transposition of the 
directives  regarding  the  definitions  of  harassment  and  discrimination.  In  Article  1  it 
provides  a  definition  of  discrimination  covering  direct  and  indirect  discrimination  and 
harassment,  as  well  as  instructions  to  discriminate.  It  completes  the  protection  against 
victimisation and covers non-salaried and independent workers. 

The  legislative  development  resulting  from  the  Law  of  27  May  2008  has  brought  about 
the removal of national origin from the list of prohibited grounds covered, except in the 
Labour Code and the Penal Code. 

Remedies  in  relation  to  discrimination  before  the  civil  courts  created  by  explicit  statute 
(Law of 16 November 2001, Law of 17 January 2002 and Law  No. 2008-496) all benefit 
from  the  shift  in  the  burden  of  proof.  There  has  been  significant  development  of  the 
jurisprudence  facilitating  the  claimant’s  access  to  evidence  in  matters  of  discrimination; 
however,  resistance  and  inconsistent  application  of  the  shift  in  the  burden  of  proof  and 
principles of access to evidence before the lower courts can still be observed. 

Magistrates,  public  servants  working  within  Parliament  and  contractual  public  servants 
who hold one  of the various statuses that are  excluded from the application of  Law  No. 
83-634  are  excluded  from  all  protections  against  discrimination  and  are  not  covered  by 

4   ECtHR, Winterstein v. France, 17 October 2013. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the transposition of the directives. However, in the Perreux case, the Conseil d’Etat held 
that  Directive  2000/78/EC,  was  directly  applicable  in  national  law  and  therefore 
applicable to all public agents.5 

Law  No.  2005-102  of  11  February  2005  reviews  the  entire  system  relating  to  public 
support  and  legal  protection  for  disabled  people  and  completes  the  transposition  of 
Directive  2000/78/EC  by  providing  a  right  to  reasonable  accommodation  in  the 
workplace, as well as positive action programmes imposing employment quotas for both 
the  public  and  private  sectors.  However,  even  after  the  adoption  of  Law  No.  2008-496 
completing  transposition,  reasonable  accommodation  obligations  still  benefit  only 
employees  who  have  obtained  official  recognition,  have  disabled  worker  status,  those 
who  have  suffered  an  accident  at  work  resulting  in  a  degree  of  disability  greater  than 
10 %  and  who  benefit  from  compensation  in  this  regard,  those  in  receipt  of  disability 
pensions and disabled veterans. Therefore, non-registered disabled people, non-salaried 
disabled  workers  and  disabled  people  who  are  members  of  the  professions  are  still  not 
covered by the reasonable accommodation obligation. 

The adoption of Law No. 2013-404 of 17 May 2013 opening access to marriage to same-
sex  couples  put  an  end  to  indirect  discrimination  resulting  from  rights  and  privileges 
reserved  for  married  couples,  such  as  special holidays,  which  were  held  to  be  indirectly 
discriminatory on the ground of sexual orientation by the CJEU on 12 December 2013 in 
the Hay case. 

3. Main principles and definitions 

All codified texts prohibiting discrimination in national legislation state a list of prohibited 
grounds  without  defining  them.  Since  the  law  prohibits  taking  the  concept  of  origin  or 
race into consideration, they are not defined and no application of the exception provided 
in  Directive  2000/43/EC  was  enacted  into  French  law.  The  wording  of  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination  in  the  Penal  Code,  the  Labour  Code  and  the  Civil  Code  includes  the 
concept  of  assumed  characteristics  on  the  grounds  of  origin,  race  and  religion.  The 
systematic reference to physical appearance, national origin and last name in the list of 
prohibited grounds of discrimination is also a way to cover assumed characteristics. 

The  concepts  of  direct  and  indirect  discrimination  are  defined  in  Article  1  of  Law  No. 
2008-496.  Whereas  the  definition  of  indirect  discrimination  conforms  to  the  directives, 
that of direct discrimination does not. It excludes the possibility of proceeding by way of 
hypothetical  comparison:  the  expression  ‘would  have  been’  has  been  replaced  by  ‘will 
have  been’.  In  addition,  the  law  extends  the  definition  of  discrimination  to  a  correct 
definition  of  harassment,  which  eliminates  the  previous  requirement  for  repeated 
measures,  and  instruction  to  discriminate.  Furthermore,  incitement  and  instruction  to 
discriminate  correspond  to  the  notion  of  complicity  in  Articles  121-6  and  121-7  of  the 
Penal Code and are covered by general principles of liability in civil law. 

The  Law  of  28  May  2008  creates  a  possibility  for  employers  to  invoke  occupational 
requirements  on  all  grounds,  provided  this  pursues  legitimate  objectives  and  is 
proportionate (Articles 2(3) and 8(3)). With regard to age, it has created Article L1133-3 
of the Labour Code, which provides the possibility to make exceptions to the prohibition 
of discrimination on the ground of age.  

However, the Law of 27 May 2008 also extends the defence in the Labour Code to direct 
and  indirect  discrimination  based  on  age,  by  creating  a  general  defence  which  is  non-
specific  and  appears  to  allow  any  employer  in  any  situation  to  attempt  to  justify 
differential treatment (Article 6(4)).  

5   Conseil d’Etat (Council of State), No. 298348, 30 October 2009. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Although discrimination by association is not expressly covered, except in case of explicit 
protection  provided  by  law  (e.g.  parents  caring  for  disabled  children),  there  is 
jurisprudence  extending  the  legal  protection  to  associated  persons  in  matters  of 
discrimination related to trade union activities.6 There is no legal rule addressing multiple 
grounds of discrimination, but the courts have accepted that such findings may be made 
when evidence shows unequal treatment resulting from a combination of grounds.7 

In Law No. 2005-102 of 11 February 2005 on disability, the definition of the prohibition 
of  discrimination  in  employment  on  the  basis  of  disability  covers  the  employer’s 
perception  of  the  condition  of  the  employee  and  limitations  resulting  from  the 
environment.  It  can  thus  be  considered  to  include  assumed  characteristics  as  well.  It 
provides a definition of  disability that is broader than that of the CJEU in  case C-13/05, 
Chacón  Navas,  that  is  not  limited  to  access  to  professional  life  and  encompasses 
limitations  in  all  areas  of  life,  related  or  not  to  consequences  of  health  problems.  In 
addition, Article L1132-1 of the Labour Code and the Law on public servants no. 83-643 
cover  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  both  health  and  disability,  and  provide  for 
reasonable  accommodation in  both  cases  in  terms  of  adapting  the  work  environment  to 
the  requirements  imposed  by  occupational  medicine,  the  only  limitation  being  if  the 
measure is disproportionate in terms of costs. Therefore, French protection complies with 
the definitions of disability and reasonable accommodation defined by the CJEU in joined 
cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 Ring and Skouboe Werge. 

4. Material scope 

Since  the  Law  of  27  May  2008,  the  legal  regime  is  variable  according  to  protected 
grounds and areas of discrimination. There is an extended material scope covering social 
protection,  social  advantages,  education,  access  to  health  services  and  goods  and 
services, which applies only to ethnic origin and race. Protection of access to professional 
organisations and of non-salaried and independent workers applies only to Article 19(1) 
TFEU  grounds  (Law  No.  2008-496,  Article  2).  The  Labour  Code  and  Penal  Code  cover 
national  origin  and  there  is  still  no  provision  for  reasonable  accommodation  of  public 
servants benefiting from specific statuses and non-salaried and independent workers. 

The  general  protection  against  discrimination  is  enforceable  against  both  private  and 
public  persons.  Regarding  employment,  implementation  applies  to  both  the  public  and 
private  sectors.  The  principle  of  equality  is  applicable  to  non-nationals,  unless  the 
legislator  can  justify  a  difference  in  treatment  on  the  basis  of  conditions  of  public 
interest. However, the law makes access to certain rights, such as the right to work and 
some social benefits, conditional on the individual having the status of a legally resident 
foreign national.  

The scope of the protection against discrimination extends beyond that contained in the 
directives since it offers coverage of all grounds with regard to housing (Article 1 of Law 
No. 2014-366 of 24 March 2014 introduced age as a ground of prohibited discrimination 
in access to housing) and, further to the adoption of the Law of 11 February 2005, offers 
protection  in  access  to  education,  social  protection,  social  advantages  and  goods  and 
services  in  relation  to  disability.  On  other  TFEU  grounds,  protection  in  access  to  goods 
and services is limited to the Penal Code.  

5. Enforcing the law 

In France, since the law is transversal for a great part of its protection, cases are referred 
to  as  precedents  whether  or  not  they  discuss  issues  related  to  the  same  ground  of 
discrimination. Procedural means of access to evidence remain difficult to enforce.  

6   Caen Appeals Court, Enault v. SAS ED, 17 September 2010.  
7   Court of Appeal of Poitiers, No. 08/00461, 17 February 2009. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Admissible means of evidence should include the use of statistics. On 15 December 2011, 
the  Court  of  Cassation  recognised  that  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  origin  can  be 
established  by  analysing  lists  of  employees  on  the  basis  of  their  surname.8  Statistics 
resulting  from  the  comparative  situation  of  employees  of  a  common  employer  are  now 
frequently  used  in  labour  law  and  have  been  repeatedly  recognised  by  the  Court  of 
Cassation.  

Situation testing was introduced into the Penal Code at Article 225-3-1 PC by the Law of 
9 March 2006 as evidence of discrimination in criminal courts by the jurisprudence of the 
Court of Cassation. It has not yet been used as evidence in civil cases, due to the strict 
requirements of fairness enforced in civil procedures. Developed by anti-racist NGOs, it is 
mostly used by them, but also by individual complainants. 

All complaints alleging discrimination against a private party (employer, service provider, 
landlord etc.) must be brought before the civil courts. Salaried employees (in the private 
sector  or  contractual  agents  of  an  industrial  or  commercial  public  service)  must  bring 
their  claim  before  the  Labour  Court.  All  other  cases  will  be  brought  before  the  district 
court (tribunal d’instance) or regional court (tribunal de grande instance), depending on 
the amounts involved or claimed. Most cases are brought before the Labour Court. There 
is no systematic system for the publication of decisions. However, legal publications and 
the media regularly cover discrimination cases. 

The  Law  of  16  November  2001  provides  the  possibility  for  representative  trade  unions 
and  NGOs  that  have  been  in  existence  for  over  five  years  to  act  on  behalf  of  a  victim 
bringing a claim. Article 31 of the New Code of Civil Procedure recognises the legal status 
before  the  civil  courts  of  any  person  who  has  a  legitimate  interest  in  the  dismissal  or 
granting of the action. In cases of discrimination in housing, the Law of 17 January 2002 
extends  the  right  of  action  of  NGOs  to  collective  and  individual  recourse.  The  equality 
body  (Defender  of  Rights)  can  present  observations  as  amicus  curiae  before  the  court 
and file elements of its investigation in the court record. 

The  general  principle  in  French  civil  law  is  to  remedy  the  prejudice  by  awarding 
compensatory pecuniary damages indemnifying the financial and non-material damages, 
without  further  pecuniary  sanction  or  punitive  damages.  In  matters  related  to 
employment,  a  significant  development  can  be  observed  in  non-material  damages 
awarded  in  cases  where  financial  damages  are  difficult  to  establish.  In  cases  of 
discrimination at work,  Article L1134-4 LC provides for the possibility of also  requesting 
the  annulment  of  the  discriminatory  measure  concerned,  resulting,  for  example,  in  the 
reintegration  of  the  employee  in  case  of  dismissal.  This  provision  was  amended  by  Law 
No.  2008-561  of  17  June  2008,  to  subject  the  claim  to  a  statute  of  limitations  of  five 
years.  However,  in  cases  related  to  access  to  goods  and  services  damages  remain  very 
low. 

The  first  legislation  implementing  the  directives,  the  Law  of  16  November  2001, 
integrated combating discrimination as an objective in collective bargaining, branch (sub-
sections of the labour force) negotiations and national negotiations. In autumn 2014, the 
Minister  of  Employment  initiated  a  large-scale  working  group,  bringing  together  civil 
society and social partners in relation to the effectiveness of policies and mechanisms to 
combat discrimination. It was due to deliver its conclusions in spring 2015. 

Pursuant  to  the  adoption  of  Article  L1133-3  LC  by  the  Law  of  27  May  2008,  the 
Government adopted Decree No. 2009-560 of 20 May 2009 establishing a positive action 
scheme to support the employment of workers over 50 years of age.  

8   Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, no. K 10-15873, Airbus, 15 December 2011. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
With  regard  to  disabled  people,  the  Law  of  11  February  2005  maintains  the  quota 
obligations  for  6  %  of  disabled  employees,  while  extending  it  to  the  public  sector,  and 
sets  out  specific  mechanisms  of  access  to  public  employment  and  early  retirement 
conditions.  

There  is  a  specific  scheme,  which  targets  Roma  and  Traveller  children,  in  order  to 
facilitate their access to education and integration into state schools.9 

6. Equality bodies 

On  21  July  2008,  the  Government  passed  a  Constitutional  Law  modernising  the 
institutions  that  established,  through  Article  41,  a  Defender  of  Rights.  Its  powers  and 
jurisdiction  were  precisely  defined  by  the  Institutional  Act  (loi  organique)  No.  2011-333 
of  29  March  2011,  which  came  into  force  on  1  May  2011.  It  integrates  the  French 
Ombudsman  (Médiateur  de  la  République),  the  Children’s  Defender,  the  National 
Commission on Security Ethics and, finally, the former  equality body – the Equal Rights 
and Anti-Discrimination Commission (Haute autorité de lutte contre les discriminations et 
pour l’égalité, HALDE). It assumes the jurisdiction for claims in all these areas, as well as 
competence to propose legislative reform, to pursue the promotion of rights and to carry 
out  research  in  all  its  spheres  of  competence.  It  covers  all  grounds  of  discrimination, 
direct and indirect, prohibited by national laws and international conventions duly ratified 
by France. 

The  Defender  of  Rights  has  competence  to  investigate  individual  and  collective 
complaints,  following  requests  from  individuals,  NGOs,  trade  unions  or  members  of 
Parliament,  and  request  explanations  from  any  public  or  private  person,  including 
communication  of  documents  or  any  information  providing  evidence  of  the  facts.  Its 
means  for  the  resolution  of  claims  are  mediation,  recommendations  to  the  state  or 
private parties, whether individual or general, and the ability to present its observations 
as amicus curiae and file its investigative complaint before all jurisdictions, unilaterally or 
at  the  request  of  the  court  or  the  parties.  It  also  has  a  specific  power  to  propose  a 
transaction in case of discrimination of a penal nature covered by the Penal  Code called 
‘la transaction pénale’ (penal transaction).  

The  capacity  of  the  Defender  of  Rights  to  fully  pursue  this  mission  with  regard  to 
combating  discrimination  is  no  longer  in  question.  Its  claims  have  increased  by  20  %, 
compared  to  those  received  by  the  HALDE  during  its  last  full  year  of  activity  in  2010. 
Jacques Toubon was appointed Defender of Rights in July 2014, following the death of his 
predecessor,  Dominique  Baudis.  He  has  set  priorities  in  relation  to  communication 
strategy, access to rights, research and combating racism.  

For the first time in 2014, the Defender of Rights brought three third-party interventions 
before  the  ECtHR  and  submitted  observations  in  relation  to  a  claim  related  to  voting 
rights of Roma before the European Commission. 

7. Key issues 

- 

ideological  objections  to  anti-discrimination 

Anti-discrimination  law  continues  to  focus  resistance  on  what  is  perceived  as 
community-based  analysis  of  social  tensions.  This  constitutes  the  core  of  very 
strong 
law  within  the  French 
institutions.  The  traditional  formal  theory  of  equality,  the  concept  of  fault  in  civil 
matters  and  the  supremacy  of  Parliament  remain  the  ultimate  reference.  At  trial 
level, the shift in the burden of proof and the concept of indirect discrimination are 
perceived as means to condemn liability without fault and to confer special rights to 
members of certain groups. 

9   Ministerial Instruction 2012-143 of 2 October 2012. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 

- 

- 

- 

Even  though  anti-discrimination  law  has  been  implemented  by  the  higher  courts 
and  has  evolved  over  the  last  ten  years,  lawyers  in  general  practice  and  first 
instance  judges  often  lack  proper  training  to  implement  its  rules  of  evidence,  the 
latest jurisprudential developments and the particulars of its rhetoric. Claimants still 
have to be ready to face multiple appeals before winning their cases. Discrimination 
cases  are  much  more  favourably  heard  at  the  appellate  level  and  the  rate  of 
success  before  the  courts  has  been  significantly  improved  by  the  contribution  of 
observations presented by the HALDE and the Defender of Rights. 
Indirect  discrimination  is  still  a  misunderstood  concept  that  is  seldom  argued  by 
lawyers,  and  often  directly  invoked  by  the  court  unilaterally,10  and  only  once  in  a 
case relating to discrimination on the ground of origin.11 
The ground  of  religion in the  fields of  employment and  education is  the subject  of 
important  legal  and  political  debates  aiming  to  extend  the  duty  of  neutrality  of 
public servants to private law employees in situations where the employer executes 
missions  of  service  to  the  public  or  where  commercial  actors  wish  to  present  a 
neutral  figure  in  relations  with  the  public.  This  tension  was  translated  in  2013 
through the conflict between the Social Chamber of the Court  of Cassation and the 
Versailles  and  Paris  Courts  of  Appeal  in  the  Baby  Loup  case,  regarding  possible 
limitations  to  the  duty  of  neutrality  of  private  employees  working  in  a  daycare 
centre by reason of its ethos and belief.12 This case was heard a second time by the 
plenary  session  of  the  Court  of  Cassation,  which  issued  its  decision  on  25  June 
2014.13  It  refused  to  consider  that  the  law  provided  for  a  possibility  to  argue 
occupational  requirements  and  discuss  whether  neutrality  can  be  argued  to 
constitute  an  occupational  requirement  exception.  The  plenary  did  not  discuss 
whether or not this limitation on religious expression was discriminatory, directly or 
indirectly,  and  whether  or  not  it  was  justified.  It  followed  an  altogether  different 
justification  to  conclude  that  the  claimant’s  dismissal  was  legal,  based  on  a 
particular  context  allowing  legitimate  restrictions  to  a  fundamental  freedom,  and 
deciding the case as a pure question of facts. This conflict re-emerged as a result of 
a case relating to the dismissal of an IT consultant further to her refusal to remove 
her  Islamic  veil,  which  was  said  to  have  made  employees  of  the  client 
uncomfortable.  Given  that  the  CJEU  has  not  yet  decided  whether  the  desire  of 
private  clients  not  to  be  served  by  someone  wearing  an  Islamic  veil  qualifies  as  a 
determining  occupational  requirement  relating  to  the  nature  or  the  conditions  of 
performance  of  the  working  contract,  the  Court  of  Cassation  referred  the  question 
to  the  CJEU  on  24  April  2015,  in  the  case  Asma  Bougnaoui  and  Association  de 
defense des droits de l’homme v. Micropole SA.14  
2014  and  2015  have  seen  a  significant  increase  in  hate  speech  and  violent 
manifestations  of  Islamophobia  and  anti-Semitism.  The  French  authorities  have 
made  considerable  efforts  to  organise  a  proportionate  and  democratic  response  to 
xenophobic  reactions  to  terrorist  violence  and  the  geopolitical  context,  which  is 
exploited  by  extreme  right  populist  politicians.  An  action  plan  against  racism  was 
publicly  announced  on  19  April  2015.  The  action  plan,  which  has  a  budget  of 
EUR 100 million over three years, sets out 40 measures related to access to rights, 
education, communication and  the  support of  NGOs. This context  has a significant 

10   The first case concluding indirect discrimination, where it was raised by the Court of Cassation, Social 

Chamber, No. 05-04962, 9 January 2007, available at: 
www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000017624898&fastReqI
d=1576422841&fastPos=1 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

11   Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, No. 10-20765, 3 November 2011, available at: 

www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000024764368&fastReqI
d=1975217984&fastPos=1 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

12   Versailles Court of Appeal, No. 10/05642, Baby Loup, 27 November 2011; Court of Cassation decision, 

available at: www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/chambre_sociale_576/536_19_25762.html; Court of 
Appeal of Paris decision, available at: http://combatsdroitshomme.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2013/11/CA-Paris-
27-novembre-2013-13-02981-c-A-Babyloup1.pdf ( accessed 6 September 2016). 

13   http://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/assemblee_pleniere_22/612_25_29566.html (accessed 6 

September 2016). 

14   CJEU, C-188/15, 9 April 2015. 

11 

 
                                                 
- 

impact  on  the  number  of  discriminatory  responses  in  relation  to  access  to 
employment  and  access  to  goods  and  services  experienced  by  people  of  North 
African and Middle Eastern origin. 
Since  the  June  2012  national  elections  in  France,  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  has 
intensified  the  previous  policy  of  evicting  people  from  illegally  occupied  land.  A 
Ministerial Instruction was published on 28 August 2012,15 putting in place a policy 
anticipating  the  dismantling  of  illegal  camps,  in  order  to  implement  humanitarian 
conditions  in  relation  to  access  to  housing,  education  and  social  rights  in  the 
context  of  each  eviction  of  Travellers  and  Roma  from  illegally  occupied  land.  In 
autumn 2013, the Government opened a EUR  4 million fund to finance integration 
measures  for  families  who  are  deemed  able  to  be  integrated,  while  pursuing  its 
eviction policy. Data on the impact of this policy are not available, since there are 
no  ethnic  data  in  France  and  therefore  no  specific  statistics  on  Roma.  However, 
NGOs estimate that very few foreign Roma benefited from the integration measures 
and that their situation and number in French territory is stable,  regardless  of the 
expulsion policy, since families keep returning after expulsion. 

15   Ministerial Instruction of 26 August 2012 NOR INTK1233053C, available at: 

http://circulaire.legifrance.gouv.fr/pdf/2012/08/cir_35737.pdf (accessed 6 September 2016). 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
RÉSUMÉ  

1. Introduction 

La clé de l’approche juridique du racisme et de la discrimination en France repose sur une 
conception  formelle  abstraite  et  universaliste  de  l’égalité,  consacrée  par  une  série 
d’instruments parmi lesquels les constitutions de 1946 et 1958. Le  cadre juridique ainsi 
formé s’est développé  selon deux axes complémentaires: la condamnation de l’inégalité 
fondée sur «l’origine», d’une part, et le refus parallèle d’utiliser le critère de «l’origine» à 
des  fins  politiques  et  administratives,  même  en  ce  qui  concerne  la  lutte  contre  la 
discrimination (confirmé par le Conseil constitutionnel).  

Dans  une  décision  du  15 novembre  2007,  le  Conseil  constitutionnel  a  explicitement 
entériné  pour  la  première  fois  le  refus  de  la  philosophie  française  de  reconnaître  les 
concepts  de  l’origine  ethnique  et  de  la  race  en  tant  que  catégories  juridiques  ou 
administratives,  ou  de  recherche,  pouvant  servir  de  base  à  l’évaluation  d’un  traitement 
différencié.16  Toute  approche  de  l’origine  doit  se  fonder  sur  des  indications  objectives 
telles  que  la  nationalité  des  parents  et  des  grands-parents,  afin  d’objectiver  la 
construction de catégorie de comparaison.  

Même  en  l’absence  de  texte  constitutionnel  interdisant  expressément  la  discrimination 
fondée  sur  l’âge,  le  handicap,  la  santé  ou  l’orientation  sexuelle,  la  liste  des  motifs 
interdits  de  discrimination 
le  Conseil 
constitutionnel, ouverte. 

la  Constitution  est,  selon 

figurant  dans 

En  termes  de  politique  publique,  la  conception  du  handicap  a  été  renouvelée  avec 
l’adoption  le  11 février  2005  de  la  loi  n° 2005-102,  qui  est  axée  sur  l’intégration  des 
personnes handicapées dans tous les domaines de la vie et de tous les décrets destinés à 
mettre ces principes en vigueur sur le lieu de travail ainsi qu’en matière d’accès à l’école, 
de rénovation urbaine et d’aide publique, et qui institue des quotas d’emploi tant dans le 
secteur  privé  que  dans  le  secteur  public.  La  date  butoir  pour  la  réalisation  des 
adaptations  nécessaires  en  vue  d’assurer  l’accès  aux  espaces  publics,  initialement  fixée 
au  1er janvier  2015,  a  été  repoussée  par  le  dispositif  de  l’Agenda  d’accessibilité 
programmée qui accorde des délais pouvant aller de trois mois à cinq ans.17 

La population rom de France comprend des citoyens français (les gens du voyage) qui en 
représentent  95 %  (700 000 personnes  environ)  et  les  roms  étrangers,  qui  sont 
principalement  des  migrants  originaires  de  Roumanie  et  de  Bulgarie  et  dont  le  nombre 
est estimé à 20 000. Les problèmes qu’ils rencontrent et leurs relations avec les services 
publics  sont  très  différents.  Le  grand  public  était,  jusqu’à  une  date  récente,  très  peu 
sensibilisé  à  la  situation  des  gens  du  voyage.  La  plupart  des  droits  sociaux  étant  gérés 
sur  la  base  du  rattachement  de  la  personne  à  un  lieu  de  résidence,  tous  les  citoyens 
français  ayant  un  mode  de  vie  nomade  (Roms  et  non-Roms)  ont  un  statut  juridique  et 
administratif spécifique. Les gens du voyage roms représentent 80 % de cette catégorie 
administrative. Les contrôles réguliers et la restriction de l’accès au droit de vote dont ce 
statut  spécial  était  assorti  ont  été  annulés  par  le  Conseil  constitutionnel  dans  une 
décision  du  5 octobre  2012  et  par  le  Comité  des  droits  de  l’homme  des  Nations  unies 
dans une décision du 28 mars 2014.18 Les tentatives du précédent gouvernement visant 
à  modifier  la  loi  n° 69-3  du  3 janvier  1969  régissant  ce  statut  ont  abouti  au  vote  en 

16   Conseil constitutionnel, décision n° 2007-557, 15 novembre 2007, disponible sur: http://www.conseil-

constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-
1959/2007/2007-557-dc/decision-n-2007-557-dc-du-15-novembre-2007.1183.html (consulté le 
6 septembre 2016). 

17   France, loi n° 2014-789 du 10 juillet 2014 habilitant le Gouvernement à adopter des mesures législatives 
pour la mise en accessibilité des établissements recevant du public, des transports publics, des bâtiments 
d’habitation et de la voirie pour les personnes handicapées (articles 11 et 19 à 22). 

18   Voir: www.fnasat.asso.fr/dossiers%20docs/condamnation%20ONU/Docs/ComOnu_20140506_CCPR.pdf 

(consulté le 6 septembre 2016). 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
première lecture par l’Assemblée nationale, en date du 9 juin 2015, de la proposition de 
loi n° 1610 – laquelle n’a pas encore été soumise au Sénat.  

La population rom sédentaire vit à la fois en logements publics et sur des terrains privés. 
En 2000, la loi Besson n° 2000-614 relative à l’accueil et à l’habitat des gens du voyage 
a réimposé à tous les départements l’obligation d’adopter des régimes d’hébergement à 
l’intention  des  gens  du  voyage,  renouvelant  ainsi  les  exigences  introduites  dans  la 
législation depuis 1990. La réticence des autorités d’installer des aires de stationnement 
et  l’application  plus  rigoureuse  des  interdictions  de  stationnement  créent  une  situation 
par  laquelle  il  est  fréquent  que  les  gens  du  voyage  ne  trouvent  pas  d’endroit  où 
s’installer,  ne  serait-ce  que  quelques  jours.  Cette  situation  pourrait  être  considérée 
comme  un  non-respect  de  facto  de  la  directive  2000/43/CE  pour  ce  qui  concerne  les 
droits  au  logement.  Dans  une  affaire  relative  à  l’expulsion  de  gens  du  voyage  des 
terrains où ils s’étaient établis au motif que la réglementation en matière d’urbanisme y 
interdisait  le  stationnement,  la  Cour  européenne  des  droits  de  l’homme  a  condamné  la 
France en 2013 pour violation de l’article 8 de la Convention.19 

En  ce  qui  concerne  les  Roms  migrants,  le  ministre  de  l’Intérieur  a  renforcé  depuis  les 
élections  de  2012  la  politique  antérieure  d’application  des  restrictions  en  matière 
d’occupation  de  terrains.  Les  expulsions  de  gens  du  voyage  et  de  Roms  de  terrains 
occupés  illégalement  et  les  ordres  de  quitter  le  territoire  français  ont  pratiquement 
doublé.  En  2013,  21 000  personnes  ont  été  évacuées  de  campements  occupés 
illégalement,  et  13 000  environ  en  2014.  Entre-temps,  la  population  rom  migrante, 
toujours estimée à 20 000 personnes, reste stable.  

2. Législation principale 

En droit privé, le régime juridique relatif à la discrimination se trouve dans les lois et le 
droit codifié, c’est-à-dire dans le code du travail (CT), le code pénal (CP) et le code civil 
(CC). Le droit administratif est pour sa part  essentiellement jurisprudentiel et  fondé  sur 
la mise en application d’une théorie formelle de l’égalité.  

La directive 2000/43/CE a tout d’abord été transposée par la loi du 16 novembre 2001, 
par  la  loi  n° 2002-73  sur  la  modernisation  sociale  du  17 janvier  2002  et  par  la  loi  du 
21 décembre 2004 créant l’organisme de promotion de l’égalité (Haute autorité de lutte 
contre les discriminations et pour l’égalité ou HALDE) qui achève cette transposition. Les 
dispositions  générales  interdisant  la  discrimination  ont  toujours  été  transversales, 
assurant  un  régime  juridique  uniforme  non  seulement  pour  ce  qui  concerne  les  motifs 
couverts par l’article 19, paragraphe premier,  du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union 
européenne  (TFUE)  mais  également  ceux  de  l’apparence  physique,  du  nom  de  famille, 
des  coutumes,  de  la  santé,  des  opinions  politiques,  des  activités  syndicales  et  de 
l’affiliation à des mutuelles, de la situation familiale et des caractéristiques génétiques. Le 
Parlement  a  adopté  le  15 mai  2008  la  loi  n° 2008-496  du  27  mai  2008  rectifiant  la 
transposition  des  directives  en  ce  qui  concerne  les  définitions  du  harcèlement  et  de  la 
discrimination.  Elle  contient  en  son  article  premier  une  définition  de  la  discrimination 
couvrant la discrimination directe et indirecte, ainsi que du harcèlement et de l’injonction 
de discriminer. Elle complète la protection contre les représailles et inclut les travailleurs 
non-salariés et indépendants. 

L’évolution  législative  générée  par  la  loi  du  27 mai  2008  a  entraîné  la  suppression  de 
l’origine nationale de la liste de motifs prohibés couverts, hormis dans le  code du travail 
et le code pénal. 

Lorsqu’ils  ont  été  instaurés  par  une  loi  expresse  (loi  du  16 novembre  2001,  loi  du 
17 janvier 2002 et loi n° 2008-496), tous les recours intentés pour discrimination auprès 

19   CouEDH, Winterstein c. France, 17 octobre 2013. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
des  juridictions  civiles  bénéficient  du  renversement  de  la  charge  de  la  preuve.  Si  la 
jurisprudence  a  fortement  évolué  et  facilite  l’accès  de  la  partie  plaignante  aux  preuves 
dans  les  affaires  de  discrimination,  on  n’en  observe  pas  moins  la  persistance  d’une 
réticence  et  d’un  manque  de  cohérence  dans  l’application  de  la  charge  de  la  preuve  et 
des principes d’accès aux preuves devant les juridictions inférieures. 

Les  magistrats,  les  fonctionnaires  exerçant  leur  activité  au  sein  du  Parlement  et  les 
agents publics contractuels relevant des différents statuts exclus de l’application de la loi 
n° 83-634 ne bénéficient d’aucune des protections contre la discrimination et ne sont pas 
couverts  par  la  transposition  des  directives.  Dans  l’affaire  Perreux,  toutefois,  le  Conseil 
d’État  a  considéré  que  la  directive  2000/78/CE  était  directement  applicable  en  droit 
national et, en conséquence, à l’ensemble des agents publics.20 

La  loi  n° 2005-102  du  11 février  2005  réexamine  entièrement  le  régime  de  l’assistance 
publique  et  de  la  protection  juridique  des  personnes  handicapées,  et  complète  la 
transposition  de  la  directive  2000/78/CE  en  prévoyant  un  droit  à  l’aménagement 
raisonnable  sur  le  lieu  de  travail,  ainsi  que  des  programmes  d’action  positive  imposant 
des  quotas  d’emploi  tant  dans  le  secteur  public  que  dans  le  secteur  privé.  Il  n’en  reste 
pas  moins  que,  même  après  l’adoption  de  la  loi  n° 2008-496  achevant  la  transposition, 
les  obligations  d’aménagement  raisonnable  ne  profitent  encore  qu’aux  salariés  qui  ont 
obtenu  une  reconnaissance  officielle  et  qui  ont  le  statut  de  travailleurs  handicapés;  à 
ceux qui ont été victimes d’un accident de travail leur occasionnant un handicap de plus 
de  10 %  et  qui  bénéficient  d’une  indemnisation  correspondante;  aux  bénéficiaires 
d’allocations  d’invalidité;  et  aux  invalides  de  guerre.  Il  en  résulte  que  les  personnes 
handicapées  non  enregistrées,  les  travailleurs  handicapés  non-salariés  et  les  personnes 
handicapées  exerçant  en  professions  libérales  ne  sont  toujours  pas  couverts  par 
l’obligation d’aménagement raisonnable. 

L’adoption de la loi n° 2013-404 du 17 mai 2013 ouvrant l’accès au mariage aux couples 
de  même  sexe  a  mis  fin  à  la  discrimination  indirecte  découlant  des  droits  et  avantages 
réservés  aux  couples  mariés  (congés  spéciaux  notamment),  considérés  comme 
indirectement  discriminatoires  par  la  CJUE  dans  l’affaire  Hay  (arrêt  du  12 décembre 
2013).    

3. Principes généraux et définitions 

Tous  les  textes  codifiés  de  la  législation  nationale  qui  prohibent  la  discrimination 
énoncent  une  liste  de  motifs  interdits  sans  les  définir.  La  loi  interdit  de  prendre  en 
considération  le  concept  d’origine  ou  de  race,  mais  ils  ne  sont  pas  définis  et  aucune 
application de la dérogation autorisée par la directive 2000/43/CE n’a été retenue dans la 
législation  française.  Le  libellé  de  l’interdiction  de  discrimination  figurant  dans  le  code 
pénal,  le  code  du  travail  et  le  code  civil  inclut  la  notion  de  caractéristiques  présumées 
fondées  sur  l’origine,  la  race  et  la  religion.  La  référence  systématique  à  l’apparence 
physique,  à  l’origine  nationale  et  au  nom  de  famille  dans  la  liste  des  motifs  de 
discrimination  interdits  constitue  aussi  une  manière  de  couvrir  les  caractéristiques 
présumées. 

Les concepts de discrimination directe et indirecte sont définis à l’article premier de la loi 
n° 2008-496.  Si  la  définition  de  la  discrimination  indirecte  est  conforme  aux  directives, 
celle de la discrimination directe ne l’est pas. Cette dernière exclut en effet la possibilité 
de  procéder  par  voie  de  comparaison  hypothétique:  l’expression  «ne  l’aurait  été»  a  été 
remplacée par «ne l’aura été». La loi étend en outre la définition de la discrimination en 
vue d’une définition correcte du harcèlement, qui élimine l’ancienne exigence de mesures 
répétées, ainsi que de l’injonction de pratiquer une discrimination. De surcroît, l’incitation 
et  l’injonction  à  discriminer  correspondent  à  la  notion  de  complicité  visée  aux  articles 

20   Conseil d’État, décision n° 298348, 30 octobre 2009. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
121-6 et 121-7 du code pénal, et sont couvertes par les principes généraux du droit civil 
en matière de responsabilité. 

La  loi  du  28 mai  2008  donne  aux  employeurs  la  possibilité  d’invoquer  des  exigences 
professionnelles  essentielles  et  déterminantes  pour  tout  motif  à  condition  que  l’objectif 
poursuivi soit légitime et les moyens proportionnés (article 2, paragraphe 3, et article 8, 
paragraphe 3).  En  ce  qui  concerne  l’âge,  cette  loi  a  créé  l’article L1133-3  du  code  du 
travail qui permet de prévoir des dérogations à l’interdiction de discrimination fondée sur 
l’âge.  

La loi du 27 mai 2008 étend néanmoins aussi les moyens de défense prévus par le code 
du travail à la discrimination directe et indirecte fondée sur l’âge en instituant un moyen 
de défense général non spécifique permettant apparemment à tout employeur de tenter 
dans  n’importe  quelle  situation  de  justifier  un  traitement  différencié  (article 6, 
paragraphe 4).  

Bien que la discrimination par association ne soit pas expressément couverte, sauf en cas 
de  protection  explicite  prévue  par  la  loi  (parents  s’occupant  d’enfants  handicapés,  par 
exemple),  il  existe  une  jurisprudence  qui  étend  la  protection  juridique  aux  personnes 
associées  dans  des  cas  de  discrimination  liée  à  des  activités  syndicales.21  Aucune  règle 
juridique  ne  vise  les  motifs  multiples  de  discrimination,  mais  les  juridictions  ont  admis 
qu’une  conclusion  dans  ce  sens  pouvait  être  établie  lorsque  des  éléments  probants 
attestent d’une inégalité de traitement découlant d’une combinaison de motifs.22 

Dans  la  loi  n° 2005-102  du  11 février  2005  relative  au  handicap,  la  définition  de 
l’interdiction  dans  l’emploi  d’une  discrimination  fondée  sur  un  handicap  couvre  la 
perception  par  l’employeur  de  l’état  du  travailleur  ainsi  que  les  limites  imposées  par 
l’environnement.  On  peut  donc  considérer  qu’elle  inclut  aussi  les  caractéristiques 
présumées. Cette loi contient donc une définition du handicap plus large que celle donnée 
par la CJUE dans l’affaire C-13/05, Chacón Navas, dans la mesure où elle ne se limite pas 
à l’accès à la vie professionnelle et où elle englobe les limitations dans tous les domaines 
de vie, qu’elles soient ou non la conséquence de problèmes de santé. De surcroît, l’article 
L1132-1  du  code  du  travail  et  la loi  n° 83-643  relative  aux  fonctionnaires  couvrent  à  la 
fois  la  discrimination  fondée  sur  la  santé  et  celle  fondée  sur  le  handicap,  et  prévoient 
dans les deux cas un aménagement raisonnable consistant à adapter l’environnement de 
travail  aux  exigences  fixées  par  la  médecine  du  travail  –  la  seule  réserve  étant  que  la 
mesure  doit  être  proportionnée  en  termes  de  coût.  La  protection  française  est  donc 
conforme  aux  définitions  du  handicap  et  de  l’aménagement  raisonnable  données  par  la 
CJUE dans les affaires jointes C-335/11 (Ring) et C-337/11 (Skouboe Werge). 

4. Champ d’application matériel 

Depuis  l’entrée  en  vigueur  de  la  loi  du  27 mai 2008,  le  régime  juridique  varie  selon  les 
motifs  de  protection  et  les  domaines  de  discrimination.  Il  existe  un  champ  d’application 
matériel étendu couvrant la protection sociale, les avantages sociaux, l’éducation, l’accès 
aux  services  de  santé  et  les  biens  et  services,  qui  s’applique  uniquement  à  l’origine 
ethnique  et  à  la  race.  La  protection  de  l’accès  aux  organisations  professionnelles  et  de 
travailleurs  non-salariés  et  indépendants  s’applique  seulement  aux  motifs  visés  à 
l’article 19, paragraphe 1, TFUE (loi no 2008-496, article 2). Le code du travail et le code 
pénal  couvrent  l’origine  nationale,  mais  il  n’y  a  toujours  aucune  disposition  visant 
l’aménagement raisonnable pour les fonctionnaires relevant d’un statut spécifique ni pour 
les travailleurs non-salariés et indépendants.  

21   Cour d’appel de Caen, Enault c. SAS ED, 17 septembre 2010.  
22   Cour d’appel de Poitiers, affaire n° 08/00461, 17 février 2009. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
La protection générale contre la discrimination est opposable tant aux personnes privées 
qu’aux personnes publiques. En ce qui concerne l’emploi, elle couvre à la fois le secteur 
public et le secteur privé. Le principe d’égalité s’applique aux non-nationaux à moins que 
le  législateur  puisse  justifier  d’une  différence  de  traitement  fondée  sur  des  conditions 
d’intérêt  public.  La  loi  subordonne  cependant  l’accès  à  certains  droits,  tel  le  droit  au 
travail,  et  à  certaines  prestations  sociales,  à  la  possession  du  statut  de  ressortissant 
étranger en séjour régulier.   

Le  champ  d’application  de  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination  va  au-delà  de  celui  des 
directives dans la mesure  où il couvre tous les motifs pour ce qui concerne le logement 
(l’article  premier  de  la  loi  n° 2014-366  du  24 mars  2014  a  introduit  l’âge  en  tant  que 
motif  interdit  de  discrimination  en  matière  de  logement)  et  où,  de  surcroît,  la  loi  du 
11 février  2005  offre  une  protection  en  rapport  avec  le  handicap  dans  les  domaines  de 
l’accès  à  l’éducation,  à  la  protection  sociale,  aux  avantages  sociaux  et  aux  biens  et 
services. En ce qui concerne les autres motifs visés par le TFUE, la protection en matière 
d’accès aux biens et services se limite au code pénal.  

5. Mise en application de la loi 

La  loi  étant  transversale  en  France  pour  une  grande  partie  de  la  protection  qu’elle 
confère, les affaires sont citées comme précédents, qu’elles traitent ou non de sujets liés 
au  même  motif  de  discrimination.  Les  moyens  procéduraux  d’accès  aux  données 
probantes restent difficiles à mettre en œuvre.  

L’utilisation  de  statistiques  devrait  faire  partie  des  moyens  de  preuve  recevables.  Le 
15 décembre  2011,  la  Cour  de  cassation  a  reconnu  que  la  discrimination  fondée  sur 
l’origine pouvait être établie par une analyse du registre des membres du personnel sous 
l’angle de leur nom de famille.23 Des statistiques tirées d’une comparaison de la situation 
des  salariés  au  service  d’un  même  employeur  sont  désormais  couramment  utilisées  en 
droit du travail et elles ont été reconnues à plusieurs reprises par la Cour de cassation.    

Le test de situation a été introduit à l’article 225-3-1 du code pénal par la loi du 9 mars 
2006  en  tant  que  preuve  de  discrimination  devant  des  juridictions  pénales  par 
jurisprudence  de  la  Cour  de  cassation.  Il  n’a  pas  encore  été  utilisé  comme  preuve  dans 
des  affaires  civiles  en  raison  des  exigences  très  strictes  appliquées  dans  les  procédures 
civiles  en  matière  d’équité  de  la  preuve.  Développé  par  des  ONG  de  lutte  contre  le 
racisme, le test de situation est le plus souvent utilisé par celles-ci, mais également par 
des plaignants individuels. 

Toutes  les  demandes  alléguant  une  discrimination  à  l’encontre  d’une  personne  privée 
(employeur,  prestataire  de  service,  propriétaire,  etc.)  doivent  être  portées  devant  une 
juridiction civile. Les salariés (du secteur privé ou agents contractuels d’un service public 
industriel  ou  commercial)  doivent  introduire  leur  plainte  auprès  du  conseil  de 
prud’hommes  (juridiction  du  travail).  Tous  les    autres  recours  sont  déposés  auprès  du 
tribunal d’instance ou du tribunal de grande instance en fonction des montants impliqués 
ou  réclamés.  La  plupart  des  requêtes  sont  adressées  au  conseil  de  prud’hommes.  Il 
n’existe  pas  de  mécanisme  systématique  de  publication  des  décisions,  mais  les 
publications 
les  médias  couvrent  régulièrement  des  affaires  de 
discrimination. 

juridiques  et 

La  loi  du  16 novembre  2001  offre  la  possibilité  à  des  syndicats  et  ONG  représentatifs 
exerçant  leur  activité  depuis  plus  de  cinq  ans  d’agir  au  nom  d’une  victime  qui  dépose 
plainte.  L’article 31  du  nouveau  code  de  procédure  civile  reconnaît  la  capacité  d’ester 
devant  les  juridictions  civiles  à  toute  personne  ayant  un  intérêt  légitime  à  ce  que  le 
recours soit rejeté ou  ait une issue favorable.  S’il s’agit d’une discrimination en matière 

23   Cour de cassation, chambre sociale, pourvoi n° K 10-15873, Airbus, 15 décembre 2011. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
de logement, la loi du 17 janvier 2002 prévoit un droit d’action des ONG à la fois pour les 
recours collectifs et individuels. L’organisme pour l’égalité (le Défenseur des droits) peut 
présenter  des  observations  en  tant  qu’amicus  curiae  devant  le  tribunal  et  verser  des 
éléments de son enquête au dossier judiciaire. 

Les principes généraux du droit civil français veulent que le tort soit réparé par l’octroi de 
dommages et intérêts compensatoires en réparation du préjudice financier et moral subi,  
sans  autre  sanction  pécuniaire  ni  autres  dommages  et  intérêts  punitifs.  On  observe, 
lorsqu’il  s’agit  d’emploi,  une  tendance  très  nette  à  l’octroi  d’une  réparation  morale 
lorsque la réparation financière est difficile à établir. En cas de discrimination au travail, 
l’article L1134-4 du code du travail offre la possibilité de réclamer aussi l’annulation de la 
mesure discriminatoire en cause – ce qui peut conduire, par exemple, à la réintégration 
du travailleur en cas de licenciement. Cette disposition a été modifiée par la loi n° 2008-
561  du  17 juin  2008,  qui  soumet  la  plainte  à  un  délai  de  prescription  de  cinq  ans.  Il 
convient de signaler toutefois que les dommages et intérêts restent très peu élevés dans 
les affaires relevant de l’accès à des biens et services. 

Le premier acte législatif transposant les directives, à savoir la loi du 16 novembre 2001, 
a  fait  de  la  lutte  contre  la  discrimination  un  objectif  des  négociations  collectives,  des 
négociations  de  branche  (les  branches  professionnelles  formant  des  subdivisions  des 
forces  de  travail)  et  des  négociations  nationales.  Le  ministre  de  l’emploi  a  institué  au 
cours  de  l’automne  2014  un  groupe  de  travail  à  grande  échelle  regroupant  des 
représentants de la société civile et des partenaires sociaux pour examiner l’efficacité des 
politiques  et  des  dispositifs  de  lutte  contre  la  discrimination.  Ses  conclusions  sont 
attendues au printemps 2015. 

En application de l’article L1133-3 du code du travail adopté par la loi du 27 mai 2008, le 
gouvernement a voté le décret n° 2009-560 du 20 mai portant création d’un programme 
d’action positive en faveur de l’emploi de travailleurs de plus de 50 ans.    

En  ce  qui  concerne  les  personnes  handicapées,  la  loi  du  11 février  2005  maintient 
l’obligation  d’un  quota  de  6 %  de  salariés  handicapés  et  l’étend  au  secteur  public;  elle 
fixe des mécanismes particuliers pour l’accès à l’emploi public ainsi que les conditions de 
préretraite.  

Il  existe  un  régime  particulier  à  l’intention  des  enfants  des  communautés  roms  et  des 
gens  du  voyage,  destiné  à  faciliter  leur  accès  à  l’enseignement  et  leur  intégration  dans 
des écoles publiques.24 

6. Organismes de promotion de l’égalité de traitement 

Le  Parlement  a  voté  le  21 juillet  2008  une  loi  constitutionnelle  de  modernisation  des 
institutions qui établit en son article 41 le Défenseur des droits, dont les compétences et 
la  juridiction  ont  été  définies  avec  précision  dans  la  loi  organique  n° 2011-333  du 
29 mars  2011,  entrée  en  vigueur  le  1er mai  2011.  Le  Défenseur  des  droits  intègre  le 
Médiateur  de  la  République,  le  Défenseur  des  enfants,  la  Commission  nationale  de 
déontologie de la sécurité et enfin l’ancien organisme de lutte contre les discriminations 
et de  promotion de l’égalité, à savoir la Haute autorité de lutte contre les discriminations 
et pour l’égalité (HALDE). Il peut être saisi de recours dans l’ensemble de ces domaines, 
et il est habilité à proposer des réformes législatives, à mener des actions de promotion 
des  droits  et  à  effectuer  des  travaux  de  recherche  dans  toutes  ses  sphères  de 
compétence. Il couvre tous les motifs de discrimination, directe et indirecte, prohibés par 
la  législation  nationale  et  par  les  conventions  internationales  dûment  ratifiées  par  la 
France. 

24   Circulaire n° 2012-143 du 2 octobre 2012. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Le Défenseur des droits est habilité à enquêter sur des plaintes individuelles et collectives 
à  la  requête  de  particuliers,  d’ONG,  de  syndicats  ou  de  membres  du  Parlement,  et  à 
réclamer  des  explications  à  toute  personne  publique  ou  privée,  y  compris  la 
communication de documents ou de toute information fournissant la preuve de faits. Les 
moyens à sa disposition pour résoudre les litiges sont la médiation, les recommandations 
à l’État ou à des personnes privées (à titre individuel ou général), la présentation de ses 
observations en tant qu’amicus curiae et le dépôt de son dossier d’enquête devant toute 
juridiction, unilatéralement ou à la demande du tribunal ou des parties. Le Défenseur des 
droits est spécifiquement habilité à proposer une transaction en cas de discrimination de 
nature pénale couverte par le code pénal («transaction pénale»).  

La capacité du Défenseur des droits à assumer pleinement cette mission n’est plus mise 
en cause pour ce qui concerne la lutte contre les discriminations. Le nombre de plaintes 
dont  il  a  été  saisi  a  augmenté  de  20 %  par  rapport  à  celles  introduites  auprès  de  la 
HALDE  durant  sa  dernière  année  complète  d’activité  (2010).  Jacques  Toubon  a  été 
nommé  Défenseur  des  droits  en  juillet  2014  suite  au  décès  de  son  prédécesseur, 
Dominique Baudis. Ses priorités sont la stratégie de communication, l’accès aux droits, la 
recherche et la lutte contre le racisme.  

Le Défenseur a effectué pour la première fois en 2014 trois tierces interventions devant 
la CouEDH et présenté des observations en rapport avec un recours relatif aux droits de 
vote des Roms devant la Commission européenne. 

7. Points essentiels 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Le droit antidiscrimination continue de susciter une réticence focalisée sur ce qui est 
perçu  comme  une  analyse  communautaire  des  tensions  sociales.  Tel  est  le 
fondement des fortes objections idéologiques de la part des institutions françaises à 
son  égard.  La  théorie  formelle  traditionnelle  de  l’égalité,  la  notion  de  faute  en 
matière civile et la suprématie du Parlement, demeurent les références ultimes. Au 
niveau  judiciaire,  le  renversement  de  la  charge  de  la  preuve  et  le  concept  de 
discrimination  indirecte  sont  perçus  comme  des  moyens  de  faire  assumer  une 
responsabilité  sans  faute  au  défendeur  et  de  conférer  des  droits  spéciaux  aux 
membres de certains groupes. 
Même  si  le  droit  antidiscrimination  a  été  mis  en  œuvre  par  les  juridictions 
supérieures et a évolué au cours des dix dernières années, les juristes généralistes 
et  les  juges  de  première  instance  manquent  souvent  de  formation  suffisante  pour 
en appliquer les règles de preuve, les développements les plus récents en matière 
de  jurisprudence  et  les  spécificités  de  rhétorique.  Les  requérants  doivent  encore 
toujours  s’attendre  à  faire  face  à  de  nombreux  appels  avant  d’obtenir  gain  de 
cause.  Les  affaires  de  discrimination  sont  entendues  beaucoup  plus  favorablement 
au niveau de l’appel et le taux de procès gagnés a sensiblement augmenté grâce à 
la  contribution  des  observations  présentées  par  la  HALDE  et  par  le  Défenseur  des 
droits. 
La discrimination indirecte reste une notion mal comprise qui est rarement avancée 
par  des  avocats  mais  souvent  invoquée  directement  et  unilatéralement  par  les 
tribunaux25  –  et  une  fois  seulement  dans  une  affaire  de  discrimination  fondée  sur 
l’origine.26 
Le motif de la religion dans les domaines de l’emploi et de l’éducation fait l’objet de 
débats  juridiques  et  politiques  majeurs  à  propos  de  l’élargissement  aux  salariés 

25   Première affaire concluant à une discrimination indirecte, dans laquelle celle-ci a été soulevée par la Cour de 

cassation, chambre sociale, n° 05-04962, 9 janvier 2007, disponible sur: 
www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000017624898&fastReqI
d=1576422841&fastPos=1 (consulté le 6 septembre 2016). 

26   Cour de cassation, chambre sociale, n° 10-20765, 3 novembre 2011, disponible sur: 

www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000024764368&fastReqI
d=1975217984&fastPos=1 (consulté le 6 septembre 2016). 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
relevant  du  droit  privé  de  l’obligation  de  neutralité  appliquée  aux  agents  de  la 
fonction publique lorsque l’employeur effectue des missions de service à l’intention 
du  public  ou  lorsque  des  acteurs  commerciaux  souhaitent  offrir  une  image  neutre 
dans  leurs  relations  avec  le  public.  Cette  tension  s’est  concrétisée  en  2013  au 
travers  du  conflit  entre  la  chambre  sociale  de  la  Cour  de  cassation  et  les  cours 
d’appel de Versailles et de Paris dans l’affaire Baby Loup concernant les limitations 
éventuelles  de  l’obligation  de  neutralité  des  salariés  privés  travaillant  dans  une 
crèche  en  raison  de  leur  philosophie  et  de  leurs  convictions.27  L’affaire  a  été 
entendue  pour  la  seconde  fois  par  la  Cour  de  cassation  siégeant  en  assemblée 
plénière, qui a rendu sa décision le 25 juin 2014.28 Elle a refusé de considérer que 
la  loi  ouvre  la  possibilité  de  faire  valoir  des  exigences  professionnelles  et 
d’examiner  si  la  neutralité  pouvait  être  qualifiée  de  dérogation  relevant  de 
l’exigence  professionnelle.  L’Assemblée  plénière  de  la  Cour  de  cassation  n’a  pas 
examiné  si  cette  restriction  de  l’expression  religieuse  était  ou  non  discriminatoire, 
directement  ou  indirectement,  ni  si  elle  était  ou  non  justifiée.  Elle  a  suivi  une 
argumentation  totalement  différente  pour  conclure  que  le  licenciement  de  la 
requérante  était légal,  fondé  sur  un  contexte  particulier  autorisant  des  restrictions 
légitimes  à  une  liberté  fondamentale,  et  statuer  sur  l’affaire  comme  une  pure 
question  de  faits.  Ce  conflit  a  refait  surface  à  l’occasion  d’une  affaire  relative  au 
licenciement  d’une  consultante  en  informatique  suite  à  son  refus  d’enlever  son 
foulard  islamique  –  lequel  aurait  apparemment  mis  le  personnel  du  client  mal  à 
l’aise.  Étant  donné  que  la  CJUE  n’a  pas  encore  statué  sur  le  point  de  savoir  si  le 
souhait  de  clients  privés  de  ne  pas  être  servis  par  une  personne  portant  un  voile 
islamique  constitue  une  exigence  professionnelle  déterminante,  en  raison  de  la 
nature ou des conditions de l’exécution d’un contrat de travail, la Cour de cassation 
a  adressé  la  question  à  la  CJUE  le  24 avril  2015  dans  l’affaire  Asma  Bougnaoui  et 
Association de défense des droits de l’homme c. Micropole SA.29 
Les  années  2014  et  2015  ont  été  marquées  par  une  forte  montée  des  discours 
haineux  et  des  manifestations  violentes  d’islamophobie  et  d’antisémitisme.  Les 
autorités  françaises  ont  déployé  des  efforts  considérables  pour  organiser  une 
réponse proportionnée et démocratique aux réactions xénophobes suscitées par les 
violences  terroristes  et  un  contexte  géopolitique  exploité  par  des  politiciens 
populistes d’extrême-droite. Un plan d’action contre le racisme a été publiquement 
annoncé le 19 avril 2015. Doté d’un budget de 100 millions d’euros sur trois ans, il 
définit  40 mesures  portant  sur  l’accès  aux  droits,  l’éducation,  la  communication  et 
le soutien d’ONG. Ce contexte a une incidence majeure sur le nombre de réactions 
discriminatoires  dont  les  personnes  originaires  d’Afrique  du  Nord  et  du  Moyen-
Orient font l’objet dans le cadre de l’emploi et de l’accès aux biens et aux services. 
Le  ministre  de  l’Intérieur  a  renforcé  depuis  les  élections  de  2012  la  politique 
antérieure  d’expulsion  des  terrains  occupés  illégalement  sans  droit  ni  titre.  Une 
circulaire  ministérielle  publiée  le  28 août  201230  instaure  une  anticipation  des 
opérations  d’évacuation  des  campements  illicites  afin  de  mettre  en  œuvre  des 
conditions  humanitaires  en  matière  d’accès  au  logement,  à  l’enseignement  et  aux 
droits  sociaux  chaque  fois  que  des  gens  du  voyage  et  des  Roms  sont  évacués  de 
terrains occupés illégalement. Le gouvernement a créé à l’automne 2013 un fonds 
de  4 millions  d’euros  destiné  à  financer  des  mesures  d’intégration  en  faveur  de 
familles  considérées  comme  aptes  à  s’intégrer,  tout  en  poursuivant  sa  politique 
d’expulsion.  On  ne  dispose  d’aucune  donnée  quant  à  l’incidence  de  ces  mesures 

- 

- 

27   Cour de Versailles, n° 10/05642, 27 novembre 2011, Baby Loup; décision de la Cour de cassation, 

disponible sur: www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/chambre_sociale_576/536_19_25762.html; 
décision de la Cour d’appel de Paris, disponible sur: 
http://combatsdroitshomme.blog.lemonde.fr/files/l2013/11/CA-Paris-27-novembre-2013-13-02981-c-A-
Babyloup1.pdf (consulté le 6 septembre 2016). 

28   http://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/assemblee_pleniere_22/612_25_29566.html (consulté le 

6 septembre 2016). 

29   CJUE, C-188/15, 24 avril 2015. 
30   Circulaire du 26 août 2012 NOR INTK1233053C, disponible sur: 

http://circulaire.legifrance.gouv.fr/pdf/2012/08/cir_35737.pdf (consulté le 6 septembre 2016). 

20 

 
                                                 
car, les informations ethniques n’étant pas consignées en France, il n’existe aucune 
statistique  spécifique  concernant  les  Roms.  Les  ONG  estiment  cependant  que  très 
peu  de  Roms  étrangers  ont  bénéficié  des  mesures  d’intégration,  et  que  leur 
situation et leur nombre sur le territoire français restent stables malgré la politique 
d’expulsion, car les familles reviennent après avoir été expulsées.    

21 

 
 
 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG  

1. Einleitung 

Der  Schlüssel  zur  französischen  Rechtsauffassung  zu  Rassismus  und  Diskriminierung  ist 
der  abstrakte  universelle  Formalbegriff  der  Gleichheit,  der 
zahlreichen 
Rechtsinstrumenten,  einschließlich  der  Verfassungen  von  1946  und  1958  verankert  ist. 
Der  daraus  entstandene  Rechtsrahmen  hat  sich  entlang  zweier  komplementärer  Linien 
entwickelt:  einerseits  die  Verurteilung  von  Ungleichbehandlung  aufgrund  der  „Herkunft“ 
und  andererseits  die  parallele  Weigerung,  das  Kriterium  „Herkunft“  für  politische  oder 
verwaltungstechnische Zwecke zu nutzen, selbst beim Kampf gegen Diskriminierung (wie 
vom Verfassungsrat bestätigt). 

in 

In  einem  Urteil  vom  15.  November  2007  bestätigte  der  Verfassungsrat  erstmals 
ausdrücklich  die  Weigerung  der  französischen  Rechtsdoktrin,  die  Begriffe  „ethnische 
Herkunft“  und  „Rasse“  als  rechtliche,  verwaltungstechnische  oder  wissenschaftliche 
Kategorien  anzuerkennen,  auf  deren  Grundlage  eine  Ungleichbehandlung  festgestellt 
werden  kann.31  Um  die  Objektivität  vergleichender  Kategorien  zu  gewährleisten,  dürfen 
in  Bezug  auf  die  Herkunft  nur  Merkmale  herangezogen  werden,  die  sich  auf  objektive 
Indikatoren, wie die Nationalität der Eltern oder Großeltern, beziehen. 

Obwohl  der  Wortlaut  der  Verfassung  Diskriminierung  aufgrund  von  Alter,  Behinderung, 
Gesundheitszustand  oder  sexueller  Ausrichtung  nicht  ausdrücklich  verbietet,  ist  die 
Aufzählung  der  verbotenen  Diskriminierungsgründe  in  der  Verfassung  nach  Auslegung 
des Verfassungsrats nicht abgeschlossen. 

Das  Thema  Behinderung  trat  mit  der  Verabschiedung  des  Gesetzes  Nr.  2005-102  vom 
11.  Februar  2005  wieder  in  den  Fokus  der  öffentlichen  Politik.  Das  Gesetz  konzentriert 
sich  auf  die  Eingliederung  von  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  in  allen  Lebensbereichen 
und  schreibt  die  Durchsetzung  dieses  Grundsatzes  am  Arbeitsplatz,  beim  Zugang  zu 
Schulen, in der Stadtsanierung und bei der staatlichen Unterstützung vor. Außerdem legt 
es  Beschäftigungsquoten  für  den  privaten  und  öffentlichen  Sektor  fest.  Die  Frist  für 
Umbaumaßnahmen,  die  den  Zugang  zu  öffentlichen  Räumen  gewährleistet,  endete 
ursprünglich am 1. Januar 2015, wurde jedoch durch den Fahrplan zur Barrierefreiheit je 
nach Bauvorhaben um drei Monate bis zu fünf Jahre verlängert.32 

Die  Roma-Bevölkerung  Frankreichs  besteht  aus  französischen  Staatsbürgern,  den 
Fahrenden,  die  95 %  dieser  Bevölkerungsgruppe  (rund  700 000  Personen)  ausmachen, 
und ausländischen Roma, die zum größten Teil aus Rumänien und Bulgarien zugewandert 
sind  und  deren  Zahl  auf  20 000  geschätzt  wird.  Die  Probleme  der  beiden  Gruppen  und 
ihre  Beziehungen  zur  öffentlichen  Verwaltung  unterscheiden  sich  stark  voneinander.  Bis 
vor kurzem war die Situation der Reisenden in der breiten Öffentlichkeit kaum bekannt. 
Weil  die  meisten  sozialen  Rechte  an  einen  Wohnort  gebunden  sind,  haben  alle 
französischen Staatsbürger, die einen nicht sesshaften Lebensstil pflegen (Roma ebenso 
wie  Nicht-Roma),  einen  speziellen  rechtlichen  und  verwaltungstechnischen  Status. 
Fahrende Roma stellen 80 % dieser Verwaltungskategorie. Die mit diesem Sonderstatus 
verbundenen regelmäßigen Überprüfungen und Einschränkungen des Wahlrechts wurden 
vom Verfassungsrat in einem Urteil vom 5. Oktober 2012 und in einer Entscheidung des 
Menschenrechtsausschusses der Vereinten Nationen vom 28. März 2014 kassiert.33 Pläne 

31   Verfassungsrat, 2007-557, 15. November 2007; abrufbar unter: http://www.conseil-

constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-
1959/2007/2007-557-dc/decision-n-2007-557-dc-du-15-novembre-2007.1183.html (letzter Zugriff am 
6. September 2016). 

32   Frankreich, Gesetz Nr. 2014-789 vom 10. Juli 2014, mit dem die Regierung ermächtigt wird, legislative 

Maßnahmen zur Gewährleistung der Barrierefreiheit öffentlicher Räume zu ergreifen (Artikel 11 und 19 bis 
22). 

33   Siehe: www.fnasat.asso.fr/dossiers%20docs/condamnation%20ONU/Docs/ComOnu_20140506_CCPR.pdf 

(letzter Zugriff am 6. September 2016). 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
der vorherigen Regierung zur Überarbeitung des Gesetzes Nr. 69-3 vom 3. Januar 1969, 
das  diesen  Sonderstatus  reget,  wurden  umgesetzt,  indem  die  Nationalversammlung  am 
9. Juni 2015 in erster Lesung den Legislativvorschlag Nr. 1610 verabschiedete, der bisher 
noch nicht an den Senat weitergeleitet wurde. 

Die  sesshafte  Roma-Bevölkerung  lebt  teils  in  Sozialwohnungen  und  teils  auf  eigenen 
Privatgrundstücken.  Das  Besson-Gesetz  Nr. 2000-614  aus  dem  Jahr  2000  über 
Wohnraum  für  die  fahrende  Bevölkerung  verpflichtete  erneut  alle  Departements, 
Wohnraumprogramme  für  Fahrende  zu  verabschieden,  diese  Pflicht  wurde  1990 
gesetzlich  verankert.  Die  Untätigkeit  der  Behörden  bei  der  Schaffung  von  Stellplätzen 
und die verstärkte Durchsetzung von Parkverboten hat eine Situation geschaffen, in der 
Fahrende  kaum  noch  Stellplätze  finden,  und  sei  es  für  wenige  Tage.  Diese  Situation 
könnte als De facto-Verstoß gegen die Bestimmung der Richtlinie 2000/43/EG ausgelegt 
werden, die das Recht auf Wohnraum betrifft. In einem Fall, in dem Fahrende von ihrem 
Land  vertrieben  wurden,  weil  die  Stadtplanungsvorschriften  dort  das  Parken  verboten 
hatten,  hat  der  Europäische  Gerichtshof  für  Menschenrechte  Frankreich  im  Jahr  2013 
aufgrund eines Verstoßes gegen Artikel 8 der Menschenrechtskonvention verurteilt.34 

In Bezug auf die zugewanderten Roma hat der Innenminister seit den Wahlen vom Juni 
2012  seine  bisherige  Politik  intensiviert,  die  Verstöße  gegen  das  Niederlassungsverbot 
streng  verfolgt.  Die  Vertreibung  von  Fahrenden  und  Roma  von  illegal  besetztem  Land 
und  die  Ausweisungen  aus  dem  französischen  Hoheitsgebiet  haben  sich  nahezu 
verdoppelt.  Im  Jahr  2013  wurden  21 000  Menschen  aus  illegal  besetzten  Camps 
vertrieben,  im  Jahr  2014  waren  es  rund  13 000.  Die  Zahl  der  Roma-Migranten  bleibt 
derweil stabil bei geschätzten 20 000 Personen. 

2. Wichtigste Gesetze 

Im  Privatrecht  ist  ein  Diskriminierungsverbot  in  Rechtsvorschriften  und  im  kodifizierten 
Recht  verankert,  z. B.  im  Arbeitsgesetzbuch  (AGB),  Strafgesetzbuch  (StGB)  und 
Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (BGB). Das Verwaltungsrecht dagegen besteht vorwiegend aus 
Fallrecht und beruht auf der Umsetzung des formalen Gleichheitsgrundsatzes. 

Die  Richtlinie  2000/43/EG  wurde  zunächst  durch  das  Gesetz  vom  16.  November  2001 
und  das  Gesetz  über  soziale  Modernisierung  Nr.  2002-73  vom  17.  Januar  2002 
umgesetzt;  abgeschlossen  wurde  die  Umsetzung  durch  das  Gesetz  vom  21.  Dezember 
2004,  mit  dem  die  Gleichbehandlungsstelle  HALDE  geschaffen  wurde.  Allgemeine 
Bestimmungen  zum  Verbot  von  Diskriminierung  waren  immer  bereichsübergreifend  und 
bildeten  einen  einheitlichen  Rechtsschutz,  nicht  nur  für  die  in  Artikel 19  Absatz 1  des 
Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union genannten Gründe, sondern auch 
in  Bezug  auf  körperliche  Erscheinung,  Nachname,  Gebräuche,  Gesundheitszustand, 
in  Gewerkschaften  oder 
politische  Ansichten,  Mitgliedschaft  oder  Beteiligung 
Interessenverbänden,  familiäre  Situation  und  genetische  Merkmale.  Am  15.  Mai  2008 
verabschiedete das Parlament das Gesetz Nr. 2008-496 vom 27. Mai 2008, mit dem die 
Umsetzung  der  Richtlinien  in  Bezug  auf  Belästigung  und  Diskriminierung  überarbeitet 
wurde.  Artikel 1  des  Gesetzes  enthält  eine  Definition  von  Diskriminierung,  die 
unmittelbare  und  mittelbare  Diskriminierung  und  Belästigung  sowie  die  Anweisung  zur 
Diskriminierung  abdeckt.  Es  verbessert  den  Schutz  vor  Viktimisierung  und  gilt  auch  für 
unbezahlte und selbständig Beschäftigte. 

Aufgrund  der  legislativen  Weiterentwicklung  durch  das  Gesetz  vom  27.  Mai  2008  wurde 
die  nationale  Herkunft  aus  der  Liste  der  verbotenen  Diskriminierungsgründe  überall 
gestrichen, außer im Arbeitsgesetzbuch und im Strafgesetzbuch. 

34   EGMR, Winterstein gegen Frankreich, 17. Oktober 2013. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  dem  durch  gesonderte  Rechtsvorschriften  (Gesetz  vom  16.  November  2001,  Gesetz 
vom  17.  Januar  2002  und  Gesetz  Nr.  2008-496)  geschaffenen  Klageweg  gegen 
Diskriminierung  vor  den  Zivilgerichten  ist  eine  Umkehr  der  Beweislast  vorgesehen.  Eine 
umfassende 
in 
Diskriminierungsfällen  inzwischen  den  Zugang  zu  Beweisen,  allerdings  werden  die 
Umkehrung der Beweislast und die Grundsätze des Zugangs zu Beweisen von Gerichten 
der ersten Instanz immer noch nicht oder nicht durchgehend umgesetzt. 

Rechtsprechung 

Entwicklung 

erleichtert 

Klägern 

der 

in 

Friedensrichter,  Beamte,  die  im  Parlament  arbeiten,  und  Vertragsbedienstete  des 
öffentlichen Dienstes, die unter die zahlreichen Sonderregelungen fallen, auf die sich der 
Geltungsbereich  des  Gesetzes  Nr.  83-634  nicht  bezieht,  sind  von  jeglichem  Schutz  vor 
Diskriminierung  ausgenommen.  Für  diese  Gruppen  wurden  die  Richtlinien  nicht 
umgesetzt. Allerdings kam der Conseil d’Etat im Fall  Perreux zu dem  Ergebnis, dass die 
Richtlinie 2000/78/EG im nationalen Recht unmittelbar anwendbar ist und daher auch für 
alle Bediensteten der öffentlichen Hand gilt.35 

Das  Gesetz  Nr.  2005-102  vom  11.  Februar  2005  reformiert  das  gesamte  System 
staatlicher  Hilfen  und  den  Rechtsschutz  von  Menschen  mit  Behinderung  und  setzt  die 
Richtlinie  2000/78/EG  um,  indem  es  ein  Recht  auf  angemessene  Vorkehrungen  am 
Arbeitsplatz  vorsieht  und  als  positive  Maßnahme  Beschäftigungsquoten  für  den 
öffentlichen  und  den  privaten  Sektor  einführt.  Allerdings  haben  auch  nach  der 
Verabschiedung des Gesetzes Nr. 2008-496, das die Umsetzung der Richtlinie verbessert, 
nur  Arbeitnehmer,  deren  verminderte  Arbeitsfähigkeit  staatlich  anerkannt 
ist, 
Arbeitnehmer,  die  aufgrund  eines  Arbeitsunfalls  zu  mehr  als  10 %  behindert  sind  und 
Anrecht  auf  Schadensersatz  haben,  Empfänger  von  Behindertenrenten  und  behinderte 
Veteranen  einen  Anspruch  auf  angemessene  Vorkehrungen.  Daher  gilt  die  Pflicht  zu 
angemessenen  Vorkehrungen  weiterhin  nicht  für  Menschen  mit  nicht  anerkannten 
Behinderungen, unbezahlte behinderte Arbeitnehmer und für Behinderte, die einen freien 
Beruf ausüben. 

Die  Verabschiedung  des  Gesetzes  Nr.  2013-404  vom  17.  Mai  2013,  dass 
gleichgeschlechtlichen Paaren die Ehe ermöglicht, beendet die mittelbare Diskriminierung 
durch  die  Rechte  und  Privilegien  verheirateter  Paare,  wie  das  Anrecht  auf  zusätzliche 
Urlaubstage, die nach dem Urteil des EuGH vom 12. Dezember 2013 in der Rechtssache 
Hay eine unmittelbare Diskriminierung darstellen. 

3. Wichtigste Grundsätze und Begriffe 

Alle  kodifizierten  Rechtstexte  im  französischen  Recht,  die  Diskriminierung  verbieten, 
enthalten eine Liste verbotener Diskriminierungsgründe, ohne diese zu definieren. Da die 
Berücksichtigung  der  Begriffe  „Herkunft“  oder  „Rasse“  gesetzlich  verboten  ist,  werden 
in  der  Richtlinie  2000/43/EG  vorgesehenen 
diese  nicht  definiert  und  die 
Ausnahmeregelungen  wurden  nicht  in  französisches  Recht  umgesetzt.  Der  Wortlaut  des 
Diskriminierungsverbots 
im  Strafgesetzbuch,  Arbeitsgesetzbuch  und  Bürgerlichen 
Gesetzbuch  deckt  den  Begriff  der  mutmaßlichen  Eigenschaften  aufgrund  von  Herkunft, 
Rasse  und  Religion  ab.  Auch  der  systematische  Verweis  auf  körperliche  Erscheinung, 
nationale Herkunft und Nachname in der Liste der verbotenen Diskriminierungsgründe ist 
ein Versuch, auch mutmaßliche Merkmale abzudecken. 

Unmittelbare und mittelbare Diskriminierung sind in Artikel 1 des Gesetzes Nr. 2008-496 
definiert.  Während  die  Definition  von  mittelbarer  Diskriminierung  den  Richtlinien 
entspricht, ist dies bei der unmittelbaren Diskriminierung nicht der Fall. Sie schließt einen 
Nachweis  von  Diskriminierung  durch  einen  hypothetischen  Vergleich  aus:  der  Ausdruck 
„erfahren  hat“  wurde  ersetzt  durch  „erfahren  wird“.  Außerdem  dehnt  das  Gesetz  die 
Definition  von  Diskriminierung  auf  eine  korrekte  Definition  von  Anweisung  zur 

35   Conseil d’Etat (Staatsrat), Nr. 298348, 30. Oktober 2009. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Diskriminierung  und  von  Belästigung  aus,  wodurch  die  Definition  nicht  mehr  wie  bisher 
wiederholte  Handlungen  vorschreibt.  Anstiftung  und  Anweisung  zur  Diskriminierung 
entspricht  außerdem  dem  Begriff  der  Mittäterschaft  in  Artikel 121-6  und  121-7 
Strafgesetzbuch  und  fällt  damit  unter  den  allgemeinen  Grundsatz  der  Haftung  im 
Zivilrecht. 

vom  28.  Mai  2008 

Das  Gesetz 
für  alle 
Diskriminierungsgründe  berufliche  Anforderungen  geltend  zu  machen,  sofern  diese  ein 
rechtmäßiges  Ziel  verfolgen  und  verhältnismäßig  sind  (Artikel 2  Absatz 3  und  Artikel 8 
Absatz 3). In Bezug auf das Alter eröffnet es durch den neu eingeführten Artikel L1133-3 
Arbeitsgesetzbuch  die  Möglichkeit,  Ausnahmen  vom  Verbot  der  Altersdiskriminierung  zu 
machen.  

es  Arbeitgebern, 

ermöglicht 

Allerdings  enthält  das  Gesetz  vom  27.  Mai  2008  eine  allgemeine  Verteidigungsklausel, 
mit  deren  Hilfe 
jeder  Situation  versuchen  kann,  eine 
Ungleichbehandlung  zu  rechtfertigen  (Artikel 6  Absatz 4).  Damit  dehnt  es  die  im 
Arbeitsrecht  vorgesehenen  Rechtfertigungen  auch  auf  unmittelbare  und  mittelbare 
Diskriminierung aufgrund des Alters aus. 

jeder  Arbeitgeber 

in 

Obwohl Diskriminierung aufgrund von Assoziierung nicht ausdrücklich erwähnt  wird, mit 
Ausnahme von Fällen, in denen ein Schutz ausdrücklich gesetzlich gewährt wird (z. B. für 
Eltern,  die  ein  behindertes  Kind  pflegen),  hat  die  Rechtsprechung  den  Rechtsschutz  bei 
der  Diskriminierung  wegen  der  Mitgliedschaft  in  Gewerkschaften  auch  auf  assoziierte 
Personen  ausgedehnt.36  Es  gibt  keine 
in  Bezug  auf 
Mehrfachdiskriminierung, allerdings haben die Gerichte entsprechende Klagen akzeptiert, 
wenn  die  Beweise  zeigen,  dass  die  Ungleichbehandlung  durch  eine  Kombination  von 
Gründen motiviert ist.37 

rechtliche  Regelung 

Im  Gesetz  Nr.  2005-102  vom  11.  Februar  2005  über  Behinderung  deckt  die  Definition 
des  Verbots  von  Diskriminierung  im  Arbeitsleben  aufgrund  von  Behinderung  die 
Wahrnehmung  des  Gesundheitszustands  des  Arbeitnehmers  sowie  von  Einschränkungen 
durch  die  Arbeitsumgebung  durch  den  Arbeitgeber  ab.  Damit  lässt  sich  argumentieren, 
dass das Verbot auch für mutmaßliche Eigenschaften gilt. Die Definition von Behinderung 
ist weiter gefasst als die des EuGH in der Rechtssache C-13/05, Chacón Navas, die nicht 
auf  den  Zugang  zum  Berufsleben  beschränkt  ist  und  Einschränkungen  in  allen 
Lebensbereichen berücksichtigt, egal ob diese auf gesundheitliche Probleme zurückgehen 
oder  nicht.  Ferner  decken  Artikel L1132-1  des  Arbeitsgesetzbuchs  und  das  Gesetz  über 
Beamte  Nr. 83-643  Diskriminierung  sowohl  aufgrund  des  Gesundheitszustands  als  auch 
wegen  einer  Behinderung  ab  und  verpflichten  den  Arbeitgeber  in  beiden  Fällen  zu 
angemessenen  Vorkehrungen,  mit  denen  das  Arbeitsumfeld  an  die  arbeitsmedizinischen 
Anforderungen  angepasst  wird,  solange  die  Maßnahmen  keine  unverhältnismäßige 
finanzielle  Belastung  darstellen.  Daher  entspricht  der  französische  Schutz  der  Definition 
von  Behinderung  und  angemessenen  Vorkehrungen,  die  der  EuGH  in  den  verbundenen 
Rechtssachen C-335/11 und C-337/11, Ring und Skouboe Werge, vorgegeben hat. 

4. Sachlicher Anwendungsbereich 

Seit  dem  Gesetz  vom  27.  Mai  2008  ist  das  Rechtssystem  in  Bezug  auf  die  geschützten 
Gründe  und  Lebensbereiche  uneinheitlich.  Es  gibt  einen  erweiterten  sachlichen 
Anwendungsbereich,  unter  den  die  Bereiche  Sozialschutz,  soziale  Vergünstigungen, 
Bildung,  Zugang  zu  Gesundheitsdiensten  und  zu  Gütern  und  Dienstleistungen  fallen, 
jedoch nur für Diskriminierung aufgrund der ethnischen Herkunft und Rasse. Der Schutz 
beim  Zugang  zu  beruflichen  Vereinigungen  und  für  unbezahlt  und  selbständig 
Beschäftigte  gilt  nur  für  die  in  Artikel 19  Absatz 1  AEUV  genannten  Gründe  (Gesetz 

36   Caen Berufungsgericht, Enault gegen SAS ED, 17. September 2010. 
37   Berufungsgericht Poitiers, Nr. 08/00461, 17. Februar 2009. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Nr. 2008-496,  Artikel 2).  Das  Arbeitsgesetzbuch  und  das  Strafgesetzbuch  decken  die 
nationale  Herkunft  ab,  es  gibt  jedoch  noch  immer  keine  Pflicht  zu  angemessenen 
Vorkehrungen für staatliche Beschäftigte, für die ein Sonderstatus gilt, und für unbezahlt 
und selbständig Beschäftigte. 

Der  allgemeine  Diskriminierungsschutz  kann  sowohl  gegen  private  als  auch  gegen 
öffentliche Stellen durchgesetzt werden. Im Arbeitsleben gilt das Diskriminierungsverbot 
sowohl  für  die  öffentliche  Hand,  als  auch  für  den  privaten  Sektor.  Der  Grundsatz  der 
für  Nichtstaatsbürger,  sofern  der  Gesetzgeber  eine 
Gleichbehandlung  gilt  auch 
Ungleichbehandlung  nicht  durch  das  öffentliche  Interesse  rechtfertigen  kann.  Allerdings 
sind bestimmte Rechte wie das Recht auf Arbeit und bestimmte soziale Vergünstigungen 
davon abhängig, ob die betreffende Person den Status eines ausländischen Staatsbürgers 
mit legalem Aufenthaltsrecht genießt. 

Der  Schutz  vor  Diskriminierung  geht  über  die  Anwendungsbereiche  der  Richtlinien 
hinaus,  weil  er  beim  Zugang  zu  Wohnraum  alle  Diskriminierungsgründe  abdeckt 
(Artikel 1  des  Gesetzes  Nr.  2014-366  vom  24.  März  2014  hat  Alter  als  verbotenen 
Diskriminierungsgrund  beim  Zugang  zu  Wohnraum  eingeführt)  und  durch  die 
Verabschiedung  des  Gesetzes  vom  11.  Februar  2005  Diskriminierung  wegen  einer 
Behinderung auch beim Zugang zu Bildung, Sozialschutz, sozialen Vergünstigungen und 
Gütern und Dienstleistungen verboten ist. In Bezug auf die anderen im AEUV genannten 
Diskriminierungsgründe ist Diskriminierung beim Zugang zu Gütern und Dienstleistungen 
nur im Strafgesetzbuch verboten. 

5. Rechtsdurchsetzung 

Da  der  größte  Teil  des  Rechtsschutzes  im  französischen  Recht  übertragbar  ist,  gelten 
auch  Fälle  als  Präzedenzfälle,  die  andere  Diskriminierungsgründe  betreffen.  Bei  der 
Durchsetzung des Rechts auf Zugang zu Beweisen gibt es weiterhin Schwierigkeiten. 

Auch statistische Daten sollten als Beweise zulässig sein. Am 15. Dezember 2011 hat der 
Kassationsgerichtshof anerkannt, dass Diskriminierung aufgrund der Herkunft durch eine 
Analyse  von  Arbeitnehmerverzeichnissen  auf  der  Grundlage  der  Nachnamen  bewiesen 
werden kann.38 Statistische Daten anderer Arbeitnehmer desselben Arbeitgebers in einer 
vergleichbaren  Situation  werden  im  Arbeitsrecht  inzwischen  häufig  genutzt  und  wurden 
vom Kassationsgerichtshof wiederholt anerkannt. 

Situationstests wurden durch das Gesetz vom 9. März 2006 in Form einen neuen Artikels 
225-3-1 des Strafgesetzbuchs und durch die Rechtsprechung des Kassationsgerichtshofs 
als  Beweise  für  Diskriminierung  vor  Strafgerichten  eingeführt.  Wegen  der  strengen 
Billigkeitsgründe 
in  zivilrechtlichen  Fällen  noch  keine 
Situationstests  eingesetzt.  Da  diese  Verfahren  von  Antirassismus-NROs  entwickelt 
wurden,  werden  sie  auch  von  diesen  besonders  häufig  verwendet,  gelegentlich  jedoch 
auch von Einzelklägern. 

in  Zivilverfahren  wurden 

Alle Diskriminierungsklagen gegen private Parteien (Arbeitgeber, Dienstleister, Vermieter 
usw.)  müssen  bei  Zivilgerichten  eingereicht  werden.  Abhängige  Beschäftigte  (in  der 
Privatwirtschaft)  oder  Vertragsbedienstete  eines 
industriellen  oder  kommerziellen 
staatlichen Dienstleistungsbetriebs müssen allerdings vor dem Arbeitsgericht klagen. Alle 
anderen  Fälle  werden  vor  dem  Amtsgericht  (tribunal  d’instance)  oder  Bezirksgericht 
(tribunal  de  grande  instance)  verhandelt,  abhängig  von  den  verhandelten  bzw. 
geforderten Summen. Die Mehrheit der Fälle kommt vor das Arbeitsgericht. Es gibt kein 
systematisches  System  zur  Veröffentlichung  von  Urteilen.  Diskriminierungsfälle  werden 
jedoch regelmäßig in juristischen Publikationen und den Medien besprochen. 

38   Kassationsgerichtshof, Sozialkammer, Nr. K 10-15873, Airbus, 15. Dezember 2011. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Das  Gesetz  vom  16.  November  2001  ermöglicht  es  Vertretern  von  Gewerkschaften  und 
NROs, die seit mindestens fünf Jahren bestehen, im Namen von Opfern zu klagen. Nach 
Artikel 31  der  Neuen  Zivilprozessordnung  kann  sich  jeder  an  zivilrechtlichen  Verfahren 
beteiligen,  der  ein  rechtmäßiges  Interesse  daran  hat,  dass  die  Klage  abgewiesen  oder 
dieser  stattgegeben  wird.  In  Fällen  von  Diskriminierung  beim  Zugang  zu  Wohnraum 
gewährt  das  Gesetz  vom  17.  Januar  2002  auch  NROs  das  Recht,  Sammelklagen  oder 
Einzelklagen  einzureichen.  Die  Gleichbehandlungsstelle  (Ombudsmann)  kann  als  Amicus 
Curiae  vor  Gericht  auftreten  und  der  Gerichtsakte  Teile  ihres  Untersuchungsberichts 
beilegen. 

Es  ist  ein  Grundsatz  des  französischen  Zivilrechts,  dass  materielle  und  ideelle  Schäden 
durch eine Entschädigung wieder gut gemacht werden, das Gericht jedoch keine weiteren 
finanziellen  Sanktionen  oder  Strafschadenersatz  verhängt.  In  arbeitsrechtlichen  Fällen 
lässt  sich  die  Entwicklung  beobachten,  dass  in  Fällen,  in  denen  sich  die  finanziellen 
Schäden  nur  schwer  beziffern  lassen,  dem  Opfer  häufig  Schmerzensgeld  zugesprochen 
wird. Bei einer Diskriminierung am Arbeitsplatz sieht Artikel L1134-4 AGB die Möglichkeit 
vor, auf eine Aufhebung der diskriminierenden Maßnahme zu klagen, was beispielsweise 
bei  einer  Kündigung  zur  Wiedereinstellung  des  Klägers  führt.  Diese  Bestimmung  wurde 
durch das Gesetz Nr. 2008-561 vom 17. Juni 2008 überarbeitet, das für diese Ansprüche 
eine  Verjährungsfrist  von  fünf  Jahren  einführt.  In  Fällen  von  Diskriminierung  beim 
Zugang  zu  Gütern  und  Dienstleistungen  ist  die  Höhe  der  Entschädigungssummen 
weiterhin sehr gering. 

Die  erste  Rechtsvorschrift,  mit  der  die  Richtlinien  umgesetzt  wurden,  das  Gesetz  vom 
16. November  2001, 
führte  die  Bekämpfung  von  Diskriminierung  als  Ziel  von 
Tarifverhandlung,  Branchenverhandlungen  (die  nur  einen  Teil  der  Arbeitnehmer 
betreffen)  und  nationalen  Verhandlungen  ein.  Im  Herbst  2014  setzte  der  Minister  für 
Beschäftigung  eine  umfassende  Arbeitsgruppe  ein,  in  der  zivilgesellschaftliche  und 
Sozialpartner  die  Wirksamkeit  von  politischen  Strategien  und  Mechanismen  im  Kampf 
gegen  Diskriminierung  bewerten  sollen.  Die  Arbeitsgruppe  sollte  ihre  Ergebnisse  im 
Frühjahr 2015 vorlegen. 

Gestützt  auf  den  neuen  Artikel L1133-3  AGB,  der  durch  das  Gesetz  vom  27.  Mai  2008 
eingeführt wurde, erließ die Regierung die Verordnung Nr. 2009-560 vom 20. Mai 2009, 
mit  dem  ein  System  positiver  Maßnahmen  zur  Beschäftigungsförderung  von 
Arbeitnehmern über 50 Jahre eingerichtet wurde. 

Für  Menschen  mit  Behinderung  bestätigt  das  Gesetz  vom  11.  Februar  2005  eine 
verpflichtende  Quote  von  6 %  behinderten  Arbeitnehmern  und  dehnt  sie  auf  den 
öffentlichen  Sektor  aus.  Außerdem  legt  das  Gesetz  spezielle  Mechanismen  für  den 
Zugang zum öffentlichen Dienst und spezielle Regelungen zum Vorruhestand fest. 

Es gibt ein spezielles Programm für Kinder von Roma und Fahrenden, das deren Zugang 
zu Bildung erleichtern und ihre Eingliederung in staatliche Schulen verbessern soll.39 

6. Gleichbehandlungsstellen 

Am 21. Juli 2008 verabschiedete die Regierung ein Verfassungsgesetz, mit dem die durch 
Artikel 41  der  Verfassung  eingerichtete  Institution  des  Ombudsmanns  modernisiert 
wurde.  Die  Befugnisse  und  Kompetenzen  des  Ombudsmanns  werden  durch  das 
Organgesetz (loi organique) Nr. 2011-333 vom 29. März 2011, das seit dem 1. Mai 2011 
in  Kraft  ist,  genau  definiert.  Es  führt  den  französischen  Ombudsmann  (Médiateur  de  la 
République),  den  Kinderschutzbevollmächtigten,  die  Nationale  Kommission 
für 
Sicherheitsethik  und  die  frühere  Gleichbehandlungsstelle,  die  Hohe  Behörde  zur 
Bekämpfung  von  Diskriminierungen  und  Gleichheit  (Haute  autorité  de  lutte  contre  les 

39   Ministerialverordnung 2012-143 vom 2. Oktober 2012. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
discriminations  et  pour  l’égalité,  HALDE)  in  einem  Organ  zusammen.  Die  neue  Stelle  ist 
für  Beschwerden  in  allen  genannten  Bereichen  zuständig,  sie  kann  Gesetzesreformen 
vorschlagen,  die  Durchsetzung  von  Rechten  fördern  und  wissenschaftliche  Studien  zu 
allen  Zuständigkeitsbereichen  durchführen.  Sie  deckt  unmittelbare  und  mittelbare 
Diskriminierung aufgrund aller Diskriminierungsgründe ab, die durch französisches Recht 
und  durch  internationale  Abkommen,  die  Frankreich  ordnungsgemäß  ratifiziert  hat, 
verboten sind. 

Der Ombudsmann kann Einzel- und Sammelklagen untersuchen, die von Einzelpersonen, 
NROs, Gewerkschaften oder Parlamentsabgeordneten eingereicht werden, und von jeder 
öffentlichen  oder  privaten  Person  eine  Stellungnahme  einfordern  und  schriftliche 
Dokumente und alle sonstigen Informationen anfordern, die sich als Beweismittel eignen. 
Seine  Mittel  zur  Behandlung  von  Klagen  sind  Schlichtungsverfahren  und  Empfehlungen 
an  staatliche  oder  private  Parteien,  die  sich  auf  den  jeweiligen  Einzelfall  beziehen  oder 
allgemeine  Geltung  haben  können.  Außerdem  kann  er  als  Amicus  Curiae  vor  Gericht 
auftreten  und  aufgrund  der  von  ihm  untersuchten  Beschwerden  von  Amts  wegen  oder 
auf Wunsch des Gerichts oder der Parteien Klage einreichen. Darüber hinaus hat er eine 
spezielle  Befugnis,  die  es  ihm  erlaubt,  in  Diskriminierungsfällen,  die  unter  das 
Strafgesetzbuch  fallen,  einen  so  genannten  „strafrechtlichen  Vergleich“  (transaction 
pénale) vorzuschlagen. 

Es besteht kein Zweifel mehr, dass der Ombudsmann in der Lage ist, seine Aufgaben im 
Kampf gegen Diskriminierung vollständig zu erfüllen. Er nimmt 20 % mehr Beschwerden 
entgegen,  als  die  HALDE  in  ihrem  letzten  vollen  Tätigkeitsjahr  2010.  Nach  dem  Tod 
seines  Vorgängers  Dominique  Baudis  wurde  Jacques  Toubon  im  Juli  2014  zum  neuen 
Ombudsmann  ernannt.  Seine  Prioritäten  sind  Aufklärungskampagnen,  der  Zugang  zur 
Justiz, Forschung und der Kampf gegen Rassismus. 

Im Jahr 2014 trat der Ombudsmann erstmals als dritte Partei einem Verfahren vor dem 
EGMR  bei  und  gab  ein  Gutachten  zu  einer  Beschwerde  von  Roma  bei  der  Europäischen 
Kommission in Bezug auf das Wahlrecht von Roma ab. 

7. Wichtige Punkte 

- 

- 

Dem  Antidiskriminierungsrecht  wird  weiter  mit  Widerstand  begegnet,  weil  es  als 
gemeinschaftsbasierte  Analyse  sozialer  Spannungen  aufgefasst  wird.  Dies  bildet 
den  Kern  einer  äußerst  heftigen  ideologischen  Reaktion  der  französischen 
Institutionen gegen das Antidiskriminierungsrecht. Die traditionelle formale Theorie 
der  Gleichheit,  der  Begriff  des  Verschuldens  in  zivilrechtlichen  Fällen  und  der 
Vorrang des Parlaments sind weiterhin die letztgültigen juristischen Richtwerte. Die 
Gerichte  fassen  die  Umkehr  der  Beweislast  und  den  Begriff  der  indirekten 
Diskriminierung  als  Mittel  auf,  um  eine  Haftung  ohne  Verschulden  zu  begründen 
und den Mitgliedern bestimmter Gruppen Sonderrechte zu garantieren. 
Obwohl das Antidiskriminierungsrecht von den höheren Instanzen angewendet wird 
und  sich  in  den  vergangenen  zehn  Jahren  weiterentwickelt  hat,  fehlt  vielen 
Anwälten und Richtern unterer Instanzen häufig das nötige Wissen über die Regeln 
der  Beweislast,  die  jüngsten  Entwicklungen  in  der  Rechtsprechung  und  deren 
besonderen Sprachgebrauch. Kläger müssen sich immer noch darauf einstellen, ihr 
Verfahren  erst  in  einer  höheren  Instanz  zu  gewinnen.  In  den  höheren  Instanzen 
werden  Diskriminierungsfälle  wesentlich  positiver  aufgenommen  und  die 
Erfolgsquote  vor  Gericht  ist  stark  gestiegen,  seit  die  HALDE  und  nun  der 
Ombudsmann ihre Gutachten vor Gericht vorbringen können. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
- 

- 

- 

von 

privaten  Angestellten 

der  Neutralitätspflicht 

Der  Begriff  der  mittelbaren  Diskriminierung  wird  immer  noch  zu  wenig  verstanden 
und häufig nicht vom Anwalt, sondern vom Gericht einseitig geltend gemacht40 und 
dies nur einmal in einem Fall von Diskriminierung aufgrund der Herkunft.41 
Diskriminierung aufgrund der Religion im Arbeitsleben und in der Bildung steht im 
Zentrum  wichtiger  rechtlicher  und  politischer  Debatten,  die  darauf  abzielen,  die 
Pflicht von Beamten zur religiösen Neutralität in Situationen, in denen Beschäftigte 
öffentliche  Dienstleistungen  erbringen  oder  kommerzielle  Akteure  gegenüber  der 
Öffentlichkeit  eine  neutrale  Position  einnehmen,  auf  privatrechtlich  Beschäftigte 
auszudehnen.  Diese  Spannung  trat  im  Jahr  2013  in  einen  Konflikt  zwischen  der 
Sozialkammer des Kassationsgerichtshofs und dem Berufungsgericht Versailles und 
Paris  in  der  Rechtssache  Baby  Loup  offen  zutage,  in  der  es  um  eine  mögliche 
Einschränkung 
einer 
Kindertagesstätte aufgrund deren Ethos und Weltanschauung ging.42 Der Fall wurde 
ein  zweites  Mal  von  der  Plenarsitzung  des  Kassationsgerichtshofs  verhandelt, 
dessen Urteil am 25. Juni 2014 erging.43 Das Gericht lehnte die Annahme ab, dass 
es  gesetzlich  möglich  sei,  berufliche  Anforderungen  geltend  zu  machen  und 
behandelte  auch  nicht  die  Frage,  ob  Neutralität  eine  berufliche  Anforderung 
darstellen  kann,  für  die  die  gesetzliche  Ausnahmeregelung  gilt.  Das  Plenum 
entschied  nicht  darüber,  ob  diese  Einschränkung  der  Religionsausübung  eine 
unmittelbare  oder  mittelbare  Diskriminierung  darstellt  und  ob  sie  gerechtfertigt ist 
oder nicht. Es folgte einer völlig anderen Argumentation und kam zu dem Schluss, 
dass  die  Kündigung  der  Klägerin  rechtmäßig  war,  weil  sie  in  einem  besonderen 
Zusammenhang erfolgte, in dem rechtmäßige Einschränkungen von Grundfreiheiten 
möglich  sind.  Damit  wurde  der  Fall  als  reine  Sachfrage  entschieden.  In  einem 
Verfahren,  in  dem  es  um  die  Entlassung  einer  IT-Ingenieurin  ging,  die  sich 
geweigert  hatte,  ihren  islamischen  Schleier  abzunehmen,  an  dem  verschiedene 
Mitarbeiter eines Kunden Anstoß genommen hatten, kam dieser Konflikt erneut auf. 
Da der Europäische Gerichtshof noch nicht entschieden hat, ob der Wunsch privater 
Kunden,  nicht  von  einer  Person  bedient  zu  werden,  die  einen  islamischen  Schleier 
trägt,  die  Kriterien  für  eine  entscheidende  berufliche  Anforderung  hinsichtlich  der 
Art  oder  der  Bedingungen  für  die  Ausführung  des  Arbeitsvertrags  erfüllt, legte  der 
Kassationsgerichtshof  die  Frage 
in  der  Rechtssache  Asma  Bougnaoui  und 
Association  de  défense  des  droits  de  l'homme  gegen  Micropole  SA  am  24.  April 
2015 dem EuGH vor.44 
2014  und  2015  wurde  ein  starker  Anstieg  von  Hassreden  und  gewalttätigen 
islamfeindlichen  oder  antisemitischen  Bekundungen  verzeichnet.  Die  französischen 
Behörden  haben  umfangreiche  Maßnahmen  ergriffen,  um  eine  verhältnismäßige 
und  demokratische  Antwort  auf  die  fremdenfeindlichen  Reaktionen  zu  finden,  die 
von  den  Terrorangriffen  und  dem  geopolitischen  Kontext  ausgelöst  und  von 
rechtsextremen  Politikern  instrumentalisiert  werden.  Am  19.  April  2015  wurde  ein 
Aktionsplan  gegen  Rassismus  öffentlich  vorgestellt.  Der  Aktionsplan,  der  über  drei 
Jahre läuft und mit einem Budget von 100 Millionen Euro ausgestattet ist, umfasst 
40  Maßnahmen,  die  den  Zugang  zu  Rechten,  Bildung,  Kommunikation  sowie  die 
Unterstützung von NROs betreffen. Dieser Kontext hat erhebliche Auswirkungen auf 

40   Der erste Fall, in dem vor der Sozialkammer des Kassationsgerichtshofs, Nr. 05-04962, 9. Januar 2007, auf 

mittelbare Diskriminierung erkannt wurde; abrufbar unter: 
www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000017624898&fastReqI
d=1576422841&fastPos=1 (letzter Zugriff am 6. September 2016). 

41   Kassationsgerichtshof, Sozialkammer, Nr. 10-20765, 3. November 2011; abrufbar unter: 

www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000024764368&fastReqI
d=1975217984&fastPos=1 (letzter Zugriff am 6. September 2016). 

42   Berufungsgericht Versailles, Nr. 10/05642, Baby Loup, 27. November 2011; Urteil des 

Kassationsgerichtshofs, abrufbar unter: 
www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/chambre_sociale_576/536_19_25762.html; Urteil des 
Berufungsgerichts Paris, abrufbar unter: http://combatsdroitshomme.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2013/11/CA-
Paris-27-novembre-2013-13-02981-c-A-Babyloup1.pdf (letzter Zugriff am 6. September 2016). 

43   http://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/assemblee_pleniere_22/612_25_29566.html (letzter Zugriff 

am 6. September 2016). 

44   EuGH, C-188/15, 9. April 2015. 

29 

 
                                                 
- 

die  Zahl  der  Diskriminierungen,  denen  Menschen  mit  nordafrikanischer  und 
nahöstlicher  Herkunft  beim  Zugang  zu  Beschäftigung  und  beim  Zugang  zu  Gütern 
und Dienstleistungen ausgesetzt sind. 
Seit  den  französischen  Parlamentswahlen  vom  Juni  2012  hat  der  Innenminister 
seine  bestehende  Politik  der  Vertreibungen  von  illegal  besetztem  Land  verstärkt. 
Am  28.  August  2012  wurde  eine  Ministerialverordnung  erlassen,45  nach  der  bei 
jeder  Vertreibung  von  Fahrenden  und  Roma  von  illegal  besetztem  Land  die 
Verbesserung  der  humanitären  Bedingungen  in  Bezug  auf  den  Zugang  zu 
Wohnraum,  Bildung  und  sozialen  Rechten  geplant  werden  muss.  Im  Herbst  2013 
richtete  die  Regierung  einen  Fonds  in  Höhe  von  4 Millionen  Euro  ein,  aus  dem 
Eingliederungsmaßnahmen 
finanziert  werden  sollen,  die  als 
integrationsfähig gelten. Gleichzeitig wird die Politik der Vertreibungen fortgesetzt. 
Es liegen noch keine Daten zu den Folgen dieser Politik vor, weil in Frankreich keine 
Daten  über  die  ethnische  Herkunft  und  damit  auch  keine  Statistiken  zur  Roma-
Bevölkerung  erhoben  werden.  Nach  Schätzungen  von  NROs  war  die  Zahl  der 
ausländischen Roma, die von den Integrationsmaßnahmen profitierten, jedoch sehr 
gering  und  ist  ihre  Situation  und  Zahl  auf  französischem  Staatsgebiet  trotz  der 
Vertreibungspolitik  stabil,  da  die  meisten  Familien  nach  einer  solchen  Vertreibung 
zurückkehren. 

für  Familien 

45   Ministerialverordnung vom 26. August 2012, NOR INTK1233053C, abrufbar unter: 

http://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/chambre_sociale_576/536_19_25762.html (letzter Zugriff 
am 6. September 2016). 

30 

 
 
 
                                                 
INTRODUCTION 

The national legal system 

Laws  are  the  main  source  of  rights  in  France.  They  may  be  proposed  by  Government 
(bills) or by Parliament (proposed laws), which is made up of two chambers, the National 
Assembly  and  the  Senate.  Before  a  law  is  enacted  by  the  President  of  France,  the 
Constitutional  Council  may,  at  the  request  of  members  of  Parliament,  verify  its 
consistency  with  the  Constitution.  The  effective  implementation  of  enacted  legislation 
also  depends  on  the  regulatory  section  of  the  Administrative  Supreme  Court  (Conseil 
d’Etat) adopting secondary legislation, such as decrees. 

International  conventions  ratified  by  France  can  be  directly  invoked  before  the  courts 
which have the duty to control the conformity of national legislation.  

The jurisdictional order is made up of two branches: 

- 

- 

Administrative  courts  have  jurisdiction  over  all  administrative  litigation.  Their 
highest court is the Conseil d’Etat (Council of State). 
Judicial courts have jurisdiction over criminal and private law. Their highest court is 
the  Court  of  Cassation,  which  is  made  up  of  several  Chambers,  including  the  Civil 
Chambers  for  general  private  law,  the  Social  Chamber  for  labour  law  and  the 
Criminal  Chamber  for  criminal  law.  Trial  Court  in  Employment  matters  is  enforced 
by  non-professional  judges,  and  can  be  appealed  to  the  Social  Chamber  of  the 
Court of Appeal. 

In  private  law,  the  general  legal  regime  relating  to  discrimination  is  to  be  found  in 
codified law i.e. the Labour Code (LC), the Penal Code (PC), the Civil Code (CC) and Law 
No.  2008-496  of  27  May  2008  on  various  provisions  implementing  Community  Law  in 
relation to the fight against discrimination.46  

Administrative  law,  on  the  other  hand,  is  mostly  jurisprudential,  and  based  on  the 
implementation of a formal theory of equality. In French law, as interpreted by both the 
administrative  and  constitutional  courts,  rules  are  judged  to  meet  the  requirement  of 
equality if they are the same for everyone.  

The law grants uniform and impartial protection to all individuals, and to their beliefs and 
allegiances,  but  this  applies  solely  to  them  as  individuals.  For  legal  purposes,  groups 
defined by such beliefs or allegiances simply do not exist. As a consequence, France has 
systematically  rejected  clauses  in  international  conventions  or  declarations  that  imply 
that individuals should be granted rights on the basis of their membership of a minority, 
thus constituting a legal category on the basis of origin.  

Since  the  Second  World  War,  the  long-standing  abstract  principle  of  equality  has  been 
enshrined  in  a  range  of  instruments,  including  the  Constitutions  of  1946  and  1958,  as 
well as comprehensive criminal penalties for racism and xenophobia. The resulting French 
approach  has  developed  along  two  complementary  lines:  the  condemnation  of  any 
reference  to  any  concept  of  ‘origin’  ‘ethnicity’  or  ‘race’  and  the  refusal  to  use  criteria  of 
‘origin’, ‘ethnicity’ or ‘race’ for policy and administrative purposes. 

The  broader  principle  of  non-discrimination  as  applicable  to  administrative,  civil  and 
labour law, has been introduced more recently, and derives largely from EU law. 

46   France, Law No. 2008-496 of 27 May 2008 Implementing Community Law in Relation to the Fight Against 
Discrimination (Loi No. 2008-496 du 27 mai 2008 portant diverses dispositions d'adaptation au droit 
communautaire dans le domaine de la lutte contre les discriminations), available at: 
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000018877783 (accessed 6 September 2015). 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In France, since most of the legislation applies to all grounds of discrimination, cases are 
referred to as precedents whether or not they discuss issues related to the same ground 
of  discrimination.  Generally  speaking,  whether  or  not  they  apply  EU  law,  they  seldom 
refer to the EU directives.  

List of main legislation transposing and implementing the directives 

The  European  Convention  of  Human  Rights  and  the  ILO  Conventions  are  directly 
applicable  by  the  courts.  As  regards  the  EU  directives  and  other  international 
conventions,  it  depends  upon  the  drafting  of  each  provision.  All  provisions  that  are 
programmatic  and  provide  for  intervention  on  the  part  of  the  State  are  held  not  to  be 
directly  applicable.  There  has  not  yet  been  a  judicial  decision  discussing  the 
implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)CRPD, 
there has not yet been a judicial decision discussing its implementation. 

Law  No.  1006-2001  of  16  November  2001  (entered  into  force  on  16  November  2001), 
covers all the grounds contained in Article 19(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (TFEU) and all aspects of employment.47 

Article 158 of the Law on Social Modernisation No. 2002-73 of 17 January 2002 (entered 
into force on 18 January 2002) covers all Article 19(1) TFEU grounds relating to access to 
housing.48 

Law No. 2008-496 of 27 May 2008 (entered into force on 27 May 2008) covers: 

- 

- 

protection  for  race  and  ethnic  origin,  extending  to  areas  covered  by  Directive 
2000/43/EC beyond employment and housing law – social protection, health, social 
advantages, education, access to and supply of goods and services; 
the protection for Article 19(1) TFEU grounds extends to areas covered by Directive 
2000/78/EC  which  are  not  covered  by  laws  on  public  service  or  labour  law  – 
membership of and involvement in professional or trade organisations, independent 
non-salaried workers. 

Organic  Law  (Loi  organique)  No.  2011-333  of  29  March  2011  establishing  the 
constitutional  authority  of  the  Defender  of  Rights,  the  French  equality  body  (which 
entered into force  on 1 April 2011) covers an  evolving list of grounds of discrimination: 
all  grounds  and  material  scope  covered  by  French  law  and  international  conventions 
ratified by France.49 

47   France, Law No. 2001- 1006 of 16 November 2001 relating to the fight against discriminations, (Loi No. 

2001-1006 du 16 novembre 2001 relative à la lutte contre les discriminations), available at: 
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000588617 (accessed6 September 2016), 
covers mores, sexual orientation, sex, affiliation (whether real or assumed) to an ethnic origin, nation, race 
or specific religion, physical appearance, last name, philosophical convictions, family situation, union 
activities, political opinions, age, health, pregnancy, genetic characteristics, sexual identity and place of 
residence. 

48   France, Law No. 2002-73 of 17 January 2002 on Social Modernisation –(Loi no 2002-73 du 17 janvier 2002 

de modernisation sociale), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000408905&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id (accessed 6 September 2016), covers the grounds covered by the Law No. 1006-2001. 

49   France, Organic Law No. 2011-333 of 29 March 2011 establishing the Defender of Rights (Loi organique No. 

2011-333 du 29 mars 2011 relative au Défenseur des droits), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000023781167&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id (accessed 6 September 2016). 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1  GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK  

Constitutional  provisions  on  protection  against  discrimination  and  the 
promotion of equality  

The  French  constitution  includes  the  following  articles  dealing  with  non-discrimination. 
The Declaration of the Human and Civic Rights of 26 August 1789 states in Article I: ‘Men 
are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can have no other basis 
than common utility’.50 

The Preamble of the Constitution of 1946 states: ‘In the morrow of the victory achieved 
by the free peoples over the regimes that had sought to enslave and degrade humanity, 
the people of France proclaim anew that each  human being, without distinction of race, 
religion  or  creed,  possesses  sacred  and  inalienable  rights...  France  shall  form  with  its 
overseas  peoples  a  Union  founded  upon  equal  rights  and  duties,  without  distinction  of 
race  or  religion’,  and  adds:  ‘Each  person  has  the  duty  to  work  and  the  right  to 
employment. No person may suffer prejudice in his work or employment by virtue of his 
origins, opinions or beliefs’.51 

Article 1 of the Constitution of 1958 states that: “[France] shall ensure the equality of all 
citizens  before  the  law,  without  distinction  of  origin,  race  or  religion.  It  shall  respect  all 
beliefs”.52 

In  addition,  Article  10  of  the  Declaration  of  the  Human  and  Civic  Rights  of  26  August 
1789 states:  ’No  one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even  religious ones, 
as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law 
and Order’.53 

These provisions do not apply to all areas covered by the directives. Their material scope 
is  not  broader  than  those  of  the  directives.  The  constitutional  provisions  covers  race, 
origin, religion, opinions and sex, and do not cover disability, age and sexual orientation.  

The constitutional anti-discrimination provisions are directly applicable. 

The constitutional equality clauses  can be enforced  defensively against private actors in 
addition to the State, by way of a procedure invoking an exception of unconstitutionality 
relating to legislation applicable to the litigation. 

50   France, Declaration of the Human and Civic Rights of 26 August 1789 (Déclaration des droits de l’homme et 
du citoyen de 1798), available at: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/Droit-francais/Constitution/Declaration-
des-Droits-de-l-Homme-et-du-Citoyen-de-1789 (accessed 6 September 2016). Article 1: ‘Les hommes 
naissent et demeurent libres et égaux en droits/ Les distinctions sociales ne peuvent être fondées que sur 
l'utilité commune’. 

51   France, Preamble of the Constitution of 1946 (Préambule de la Constitution de 1946), available at: 

http://www/conseil-constitutionnel/fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/la-constitution-du-4-
octobre-1958/preambule-de-la-constitution-du-27-octobre-1946/5077/html (accessed 6 September 2016). 
‘Au lendemain de la victoire remportée par les peuples libres sur les régimes qui ont tenté d'asservir et de 
dégrader la personne humaine, le peuple français proclame à nouveau que tout être humain, sans 
distinction de race, de religion ni de croyance, possède des droits inaliénables et sacrés/ Il réaffirme 
solennellement les droits et libertés de l'homme et du citoyen consacrés par la Déclaration des droits de 
1789 et les principes fondamentaux reconnus par les lois de la République’. 

52   France, Constitution of 1958 (Constitution de 1958), available at: http://www/conseil-

constitutionnel/fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/la-constitution-du-4-octobre-1958/texte-
integral-de-la-constitution-du-4-octobre-1958-en-vigueur/5074/html#preambule (accessed 6 September 
2016). Article 1: Elle [La France] assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, 
de race ou de religion/ Elle respecte toutes les croyances.’ 

53   France, Declaration of the Human and Civic Rights of 26 August 1789 (Déclaration des droits de l’homme et 
du citoyen de 1789), available at: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/Droit-francais/Constitution/Declaration-
des-Droits-de-l-Homme-et-du-Citoyen-de-1789 (accessed 6 September 2016). Article 10: ‘Nul ne doit être 
inquiété pour ses opinions, même religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l'ordre public 
établi par la Loi’. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2  THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION  

2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered  

The following grounds of discrimination are explicitly prohibited in national law:  

real or assumed origin, appearance of origin, national and ethnic origin, race, sex, 
pregnancy,  family  situation,  physical  appearance,  last  name,  health,  disability, 
genetic  characteristics,  loss  of  autonomy,  mores,  sexual  orientation,  age,  union 
activities, mutualist activities, religion, political and religious convictions (which are 
interpreted  broadly  to  encompass  all  philosophical  or  spiritual  endeavours; 
however, the term belief is not usual), belief, sexual identity and place of residence. 

The  ground  of  loss  of  autonomy  has  not  yet  been  interpreted.  It  has  been  adopted  in 
order  to  assimilate  to  discrimination  abusive  behaviour  towards  persons  who  are 
dependant,  and  confer  jurisdiction  on  the  equality  body  in  situations  where  people  in  a 
sheltered  environment  are  abusively  treated,  whether  such  environments  are  old  age 
homes, hospitals or homes for disabled or chronically sick persons. Given the definition of 
disability  in  the  International  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities,  this 
definition covers situations relating to disabled people. 

As regards the ground of  sexual identity, the preparatory working group that lead  to its 
adoption indicates that it is meant to cover unequal treatment and harassment related to 
gender  identity  whatever  the  characteristics  of  the  person  –  whether  he  or  she  be  gay, 
transgender or intersex.54 

2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives 

French anti-discrimination  legislation does not  define each ground. Since the list is very 
broad,  the  judge  does  not  approach  a  discrimination  case  by  identifying  whether  or  not 
the complainant conforms to the definition of one of the groups covered, the approach is 
more  oriented towards  an appreciation of adverse  effect in comparison to a group  or  of 
the defendant’s differentiating behaviour in relation to a prohibited ground. 

- 

Racial or ethnic origin 

No definition. 

The law actually refuses to validate the concept of ‘race’ and of ‘ethnic origin’ or to define 
them.  Since  the  law  prohibits  taking  these  concepts  into  consideration  to  create  legal 
categories, they are not defined. The concept of race is interpreted as being referred to 
in the Constitution as a prohibited concept. Ethnic origin is not interpreted either, as it is 
deemed to be a euphemism for race. This is why ‘national origin’, conceived as objective 
information  on  a  person’s  ancestry,  based  on  his  or  her  nationality  or  the  nationality  of 
his  or  her  parents  is  deemed  to  be  the  only  objective  reference  to  origin  admissible  as 
per French reservations, according to the Constitutional Council.55 

The case law does not discuss whether a person or a group meets this category. It looks 
for  evidence  of  the  behaviour  of  the  discriminating  party  or  impact  of  indirect 
discrimination  based  on  indications  that  lead  to  presumptions.  It  will  never  discuss  the 

54   France, Ministerial instruction of the Minister of Justice relating to Application of the Law of 6 August 2012 
(Circulaire relative à l’application de la loi du 6 aout 2012), 7 August 2012, No. RIM 2012 -15 / E8 – 07 
August 2012, available at: http://www.textes.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/1_1_circulaire_07082012.pdf, verified 
29 May 2016. 

55   Constitutional Council, No. 2007-557 DC, 15 November 2007. Available at: http://www.conseil-
constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-
1959/2007/2007-557-dc/decision-n-2007-557-dc-du-15-novembre-2007.1183.html, verified 27 May 2016. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
content of the concept of race or ethnic origin.  Given that the law covers appearance of 
origin, meant as being foreign or of foreign descent or not, and that direct discrimination 
essentially  addresses  assumptions  made  by  the  discriminating  party,  evidence  of  direct 
discrimination  based  on  origin  or  the  judgement  of  a  racist  person,  can  be  based  on 
foreign physical appearance or attributed origin related to a person’s external appearance 
or characteristics, such as their last name, mother tongue or accent.56  

- 

Religion or belief 

No definition. 

In  French  law  there  is  no  legal  definition  of  religion  or  belief.  The  Law  of  9  December 
1905  on  the  separation  of  Church  and  State  addresses  the  concepts  of  freedom  of 
worship  and  beliefs.57  Article  1  of  this  law  states:  ‘The  Republic  guarantees  freedom  of 
belief. It guarantees freedom of worship, the only restrictions being stated therein in the 
pursuit of the interest of public order’.58 Freedom of religion is considered to be an aspect 
of  freedom  of  opinion.  According  to  Jean  Rivéro,  an  expert  in  public  law,  freedom  of 
religion  includes,  on  the  one  hand,  freedom  of  belief,  hence  the  freedom  to  choose 
between  non-belief  and  membership  of  a  religion,  and  on  the  other  hand,  freedom  of 
worship, that is the individual or collective practice of a religion.  

The Lyon Court of Appeal, in a decision of 28 July 1997, offered the following definition: 
‘a religion can be defined by the convergence of two elements, an objective element, the 
existence of a community, even limited, and a subjective element, a common faith…’  

However, a legislative limitation on religious freedom exists in France. Indeed, sects are 
prohibited in France by Articles 223-15-2 to 223-15-4 of the Penal Code. Moreover, Law 
No. 2001-504 of 12 June 2001 allows the dissolution of any legal entity considered to be 
a sect. Such entities can also incur criminal sanctions.59  

- 

Disability 

Law  No.  2005-102  of  11  February  2005  on  equal  opportunities  and  the  integration  of 
disabled  persons  (hereafter  the  Law  on  Disability)60  revised  the  definition  of  disability 
contained in Article L114 of the Code of Social Welfare (CSW). This definition applies for 
the  purpose  of  implementing  all  relevant  provisions  relating  to  equal  opportunities  for 
people with disabilities: 

‘a  disability  is  deemed  to  be  any  limitation  of  activity  or  restriction  in  relation  to 
participation  in life  in  society  experienced  by  an  individual in  the  context  of  his  or 
her environment by reason of a substantial, lasting or definitive alteration of one or 

56   Court of Cassation, No. K 10-15873, Airbus, 15 December 2011. Available at: 

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000024993730&f
astReqId=946410880&fastPos=1, verified 29 May 2016. 

57   France, Law of 09 December 2005 on the separation of Church and State (Loi du 9 décembre 1905 

concernant la séparation des Eglises et de l'Etat), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070169&dateTexte=20080306 
(accessed 6 September 2016). 

58   Article 1: ‘La République assure la liberté de conscience/ Elle garantit le libre exercice des cultes sous les 

seules restrictions édictées ci-après dans l'intérêt de l'ordre public’. 

59   France, Law No. 2001-504 of 12 June 2001 reinforcing the prevention and repression of sectarian 

movements violating human rights (Loi No. 2001-504 du 12 juin 2001 tendant à renforcer la prévention et 
la répression des mouvements sectaires portant atteinte aux droits de l'homme et aux libertés 
fondamentales), available at: 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000589924&categorieLien=id 
(accessed 6 September 2016).  

60   France, Law No. 2005-102 of 11 February 2005 on Equal Opportunities and the Integration of Disabled 

Persons (Loi n 2005-102 du 11 février 2005 pour l'égalité des droits et des chances, la participation et la 
citoyenneté des personnes handicapées), available at: 
www/legifrance/gouv/fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=SANX0300217L (accessed 6 September 2016). 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
more  physical,  sensory,  mental,  cognitive  or  psychological  faculties,  of  multiple 
disabilities or of a disabling illness’ (author’s translation).61  

The definition of the prohibition of discrimination in employment on the basis of disability 
covers  the  employer’s  perception  of  the  employee’s  condition  and  limitations  resulting 
from  the  environment.  It  can  thus  be  considered  to  include  assumed  characteristics  as 
well. It provides a definition of disability that is broader than that of the CJEU in Case C-
13.05, Chacón Navas, that is, not limited to access to professional life, and encompasses 
limitations  in  all  areas  of  life,  whether  or  not  they  are  related  to  the  consequences  of 
health problems. However, although the definition of disability could be interpreted to be 
in conformity with the definition in CJEU joined cases C-335.11 and C-337.11, Ring and 
Skouboe  Werge  in  as  much  as  it  situates  the  definition  of  disability  ‘in  relation  to 
participation  to  life  in  society  experienced  by  an  individual  in  the  context  of  his  or  her 
environment’,  legislation  is  drafted  in  such  a  way  that  people  who  could  satisfy  the 
requirement of Article L114 of the CSW but do not wish to be registered as disabled may 
have difficulty in enforcing their right to reasonable accommodation. They can, however, 
argue their right to reasonable accommodation on the ground of the general protection 
against discrimination contained in Article L1132-1 ff. LC and Article 2 of Law No. 2008-
496 of 27 May 2008, and their right will be recognised by the courts.62 

- 

Age 

No definition. 

The concept of age itself has not been defined by jurisprudence. 

- 

Sexual orientation  

No definition. 

In  a  decision  of  19  December  1980,  the  Constitutional  Council  refused  to  include in  the 
definition of discrimination based on  sex, discrimination based on sexuality.63 Protection 
against discrimination based on sexual orientation was introduced into French law under 
the term ‘mores’, first in the Penal Code in 1985 (Law 85-772 of 25 July 1985)64 then in 
the  Labour  Code  in  1986  (Law  86-76  of  17  January  198665  and  Law  92-1446  of  31 
December 1992).66  

The term  ‘sexual orientation’ was added to the Labour Code and the  Penal Code by the 
Law  of  16  November  2001.  Henceforth,  the  terms  ‘mores’  and  ‘sexual  orientation’  co-

61   France, Law No. 2005-102 of 11 February 2005, Article L 114: ‘Constitue un handicap, au sens de la 

présente loi, toute limitation d'activité ou restriction de participation à la vie en société subie dans son 
environnement par une personne en raison d'une altération substantielle, durable ou définitive d'une ou 
plusieurs fonctions physiques, sensorielles, mentales, cognitives ou psychiques, d'un poly-handicap ou d'un 
trouble de santé invalidant’. 

62   Orléans Court of Appeal, X. vs La poste, No. 10/01990, 15 November 2011,  
63   Constitutional Council, No. 80-125, 19 December 1980, 1980 RJC I-88. 
64   France, Law no 85-772 of 25 July 1985 relating to various social measures (Loi No. 85-772 du 25 juillet 

1985 portant diverses dispositions d'ordre social), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000317523&dateTexte= (accessed 6 
September 2016). 

65   France, Law No. 86-76 of 17 January 1986 relating to various social measures (Loi No. 86-76 du 17 janvier 

1986 portant diverses dispositions d'ordre social), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000317532&dateTexte= (accessed 6 
September 2016). 

66   France, Law No. 92-1446 of 31 December 1992 relating to employment, development of part time 

employment et unemployment insurance (Loi No. 92-1446 du 31 décembre 1992 relative à l'emploi, au 
développement du travail à temps partiel et à l'assurance chômage), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000542542&categorieLien=id, 
(accessed 6 September 2016). 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
exist,  although  the  term  ‘mores’  previously  referred  to  homosexuality,  and  ‘sexual 
orientation’ was not defined in the law and has not yet been defined by jurisprudence.  

However, sexual orientation has not been interpreted to cover discrimination suffered by 
transgender people. In the past, transsexuals have argued for the use of the concept of 
discrimination based on ‘sex’ or discrimination based on ‘mores’ or physical appearance. 
In the Law No. 2012-954 of 6 August 2012, the French legislator added a new ground of 
discrimination on the ground of sexual identity to the list of prohibited grounds in private 
and public employment, in access to housing and in the Penal Code.67  

2.1.2  Multiple discrimination 

In France prohibition of multiple discrimination is not included in the law.  

However,  courts  have  allowed  claimants  to  claim  that  they  have  been  cumulatively 
discriminated  against  on  a  number  of  grounds,  for  example  in  cases  where  access  to 
university education or employment is based on an evaluation of a candidate which could 
be influenced by cumulative factors of age and nationality or age and sex. Therefore no 
additional legislation is required in order to address this issue.  

In  France  the  following  case  law  deals  with  multiple  discrimination.  Findings  of  multiple 
discrimination  have  had  no  impact  on  damages,  since  condemnations  are  strictly 
compensatory. 

The  HALDE68  (the  French  equality  body  which  was  the  predecessor  of  the  Defender  of 
Rights)  held  that  the  erroneous  refusal  to  admit  the  claimant  into  an  adult  education 
programme on the ground of her origin was influenced by a refusal to treat her situation 
on  the  basis  of  a  subjective  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  her  age  (over  30)  and  the 
fact  that  she  had  young  children.69  The  same  could  be  found  regarding  the  refusal  of  a 
social housing administrator to take into consideration the priority situation of a disabled 
person,  on  the  basis  of  her  origin,70  or  discrimination  in  hiring,  the  employer  having 
evaluated  the  claimant,  a  woman  of  44,  as  being  very  efficient  while  she  was  a 
temporary  employee,  but  not  dynamic  enough  when  she  applied  to  be  hired  in 
competition with young, inexperienced people.71 

In a case brought before the Paris Administrative Court,72 the claimant was denied access 
to  an  adult  education  programme  managed  by  a  state  secondary  school  on  the  ground 
that  she  wore  a  Muslim  headscarf.  An  injunction  ordering  her  immediate  re-integration 
was  granted.  The  HALDE  presented  observations  based  on  arguments  founded  on  the 
principles of secularism, which had been advanced in the course of its investigation. The 
court  held  that  the  claimant’s  personal  project  could  not  be  challenged  and  that  the 
prohibition  of  religious  symbols  in  state  schools  did  not  apply  to  adult  education 
programmes.  However, the issue and  the evidence that this case could be discussed  on 
the  basis  of  multiple  grounds  emerged  as  a  result  of  the  defence  by  the  school 
authorities  before  the  administrative  court,  which  by  way  of  an  additional  argument, 
questioned  whether  her  personal  education  project  was  serious,  because  she  was 

67   France, Law No. 2012-954 of 06 August 2012 relating to sexual harassment (Loi No. 2012-954 du 6 août 

2012 relative au harcèlement sexuel), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000026263463&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id (accessed 6 September 2016). 

68   French Equal Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission (Haute autorité de lutte contre les discriminations 

et pour l’égalité, HALDE). 

69   Deliberation No. 2006-03, available at: www.defenseurdesdroits.fr (accessed 6 September 2016). 
70   Deliberation No. 2007-162, available at: www.defenseurdesdroits.fr (accessed 6 September 2016). 
71   Deliberation No. 2006-20, available at: www.defenseurdesdroits.fr (accessed 6 September 2016). The Court 

of Appeal of Poitiers followed the HALDE’s analysis: Court of Appeal of Poitiers, 17 February 2009, No. 
08.00461. 

72   Paris Administrative Court, Saïd v. Greta, 27 April 2009, No. 0905233.9. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
pregnant and her husband had substantial  financial  resources.  This defence  was held to 
be discriminatory and was dismissed by the court, but did not contribute to the evidence 
of discrimination per se determining the outcome of the case. 

2.1.3  Assumed and associated discrimination 

a)  Discrimination by assumption 

In  France,  the  following  national  law  prohibits  discrimination  based  on  perception  or 
assumption of what a person is: 

- 

Law  of  16  November  2001  No.  2001-1066  on  the  fight  against  discrimination, 
providing for the definition of grounds protected in Article 225-1 of the Penal Code, 
Article L1132-1 of the Labour Code and Article 6 of Law No. 83-634 of 13 July 1983 
on civil servants. 

b)  Discrimination by association 

In  France  the  following  national  law  (including  case  law)  does  not  expressly  prohibit 
discrimination based on association with people who have particular characteristics, but it 
has been interpreted by the courts to cover discrimination by association: 

- 

- 

Law  of  16  November  2001  No.  2001-1066  on  the  fight  against  discrimination, 
providing for the definition of grounds protected in Article 225-1 of the Penal Code, 
Article L1132-1 of the Labour Code and Article 6 of Law No. 83-634 of 13 July 1983 
on civil servants; 
Law No. 2008-496 of 27 May 2008 on various provisions implementing Community 
Law in relation to the fight against discrimination. 

In a case alleging discrimination on the basis of Article L1132-1 of the Labour Code  the 
court  followed  the  arguments  presented  by  the  HALDE  and  concluded  that  differential 
treatment  of  an  employee  by  reason  of  her  relationship  with  an  individual  protected  by 
the  prohibition  of  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  trade  union  activities  is  protected  by 
the prohibition of discrimination.73 

This  interpretation  seems  to  correspond  to  the  definition  of  protection  against 
discrimination in the Coleman case. 

In  France  the  following  national  law  expressly  prohibits  discrimination  based  on 
association with people who have particular characteristics: 

- 

- 

Article  225-1,  paragraph  2  PC  and  Article  5  of  Law  No.  2008-496  prohibit 
discrimination perpetrated against legal persons and, in this regard, they  can  only 
be 
their 
considered 
members/employees; 
Article L3122-26 LC provides for a right to request adjustment of working hours, by 
association,  for  employees  who  are  family  members  and  carers  for  someone  with 
disabilities. 

terms  of  discrimination  by  association  with 

in 

2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of direct discrimination 

In France, direct discrimination is prohibited in national law and is defined.  

73   Caen Appeal Court, Enault v. SAS ED, No. 08/04500, 17 September 2010.  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Direct discrimination is covered by  all  the legislation covering all  the prohibited grounds 
of discrimination (Articles 225-1 and 2 PC, Articles 1132-1 ff LC and Article L1141-1 LC, 
Article  1  of  Law  No.  89-462  of  6  July  1989  on  landlords  and  tenants74  (known  as  the 
Mermaz  Law),  further  to  amendments  introduced  by  the  Law  of  17  January  2002,  and 
Article  6  of  Law  No.  83-634  of  13  July  1983  on  the  rights  and  obligations  of  civil 
servants).75 These texts list the grounds and the prohibited discriminatory conduct.  

The Penal Code at article 225-1 refers to direct discrimination and provides the following 
definition:  ‘any  distinction  on  the  ground  of  a  person’s  origin...  actual  or  supposed 
membership  or  non-membership  of  a  given  ethnic  group,  nation,  race  or  religion  shall 
constitute discrimination’.76 

Law  No.  2008-496  of  27  May  2008  introduces  in  Article  1,  paragraph  1  a  definition  of 
direct discrimination, which provides as follows:77 ‘Direct discrimination shall be deemed 
to  occur  in  a  situation  where,  on  the  grounds  of  a  person’s  actual  or  supposed 
membership  or  non-membership  of  an  ethnic  group  or  race,  or  of  their  religion,  belief, 
age, disability, sexual orientation or sex, they are treated less favourably than another is, 
has been or will have been treated in a comparable situation.’ 

This is not literally the same as the definition contained in the directive in as much as it 
does not explicitly foresee a hypothetical comparison relating to how an individual ‘would 
be treated in a comparable situation’. However, the French courts do use inferences and 
hypothetical comparisons.78 

b) 

Justification of direct discrimination 

Since  the  transposition  of  Directives  2000/78/EC  and  2000/43/EC  in  2001,  the  French 
legal  regime  did  not  allow  justifications  of  direct  discrimination  except  in  limited 
circumstances  on  the  ground  of  age.  In  completing  the  transposition  of  the  directives, 
Law No. 2008-496 created a general regime of justification applicable to all grounds in all 
situations, in Article 2, paragraph 2. 

This  principle  does  not  prohibit  different  treatment  which  is  based  on  a  characteristic 
related  to  any  of  the  grounds  referred  to  in  the  above  paragraph  where  such  a 
characteristic  constitutes  a  genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirement,  if  the 
objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate.  

74   France, Law 89-462 of 06 July 1989 on relations between landlords and tenants (Loi No. 89-462 du 6 juillet 

1989 tendant à améliorer les rapports locatifs), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069108 (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

75   France, Law 83-634 of 13 July 1983 relating to rights and obligations of civil servants (Loi No. 83-634 du 13 

juillet 1983 portant droits et obligations des fonctionnaires), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006068812 (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

76   Article 225-1 of the Penal Code (Article 225-1 du Code pénal), available at: 

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle/do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006417831&cidTexte=LEGITEXT0
00006070719 (accessed 6 September 2016): ‘Constitue une discrimination toute distinction/// en raison de 
leur origine... de leur appartenance ou de leur non-appartenance, vraie ou supposée, à une ethnie, une 
nation, une race, une religion déterminée.’ 

77   France, Law of 27 May 2008, Article 1 : ‘Constitue une discrimination directe la situation dans laquelle, sur 
le fondement de son appartenance ou de sa non appartenance, vraie ou supposée, à une ethnie ou une 
race, sa religion, ses convictions, son âge, son handicap, son orientation sexuelle ou son sexe, une 
personne est traitée de manière moins favorable qu’une autre ne l’est, ne l’a été ou ne l’aura été dans une 
situation comparable.’ 

78   For example, in a case relating to discrimination on the ground of origin, see Court of Cassation, Social 

Chamber, Dos Santos, No. 10-20765, 03 November 2011, available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000024764368&f
astReqId=1975217984&fastPos=1,(accessed 6 September 2016). 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  addition,  the  law  permits  the  defendant  to  present  evidence  to  be  assessed  by  the 
judge to justify direct discrimination generally, since in the context of defining the burden 
of  proof,  it  provides  for  a  uniform  legal  regime  for  all  grounds  of  discrimination,  that 
applies both to direct and indirect discrimination, and that allows the defendant to rebut 
evidence of apparent discrimination established by way of presumption (Article L1134-1 
of the Labour Code and Article 4 of the Law of 27 May 2008): 

‘in  case  of  litigation...  the  job  applicant...  or  employee  presents  factual  elements 
from  which  the  existence  may  be  presumed  of  direct  or  indirect  discrimination  as 
defined by Article 1 of Law No. 2008-496 of 27 May 2008. 

‘In  the  light  of  these  elements,  the  defendant  must  establish  that  the  measure  or 
decision  is  justified  by  objective  elements  which  are  free  of  any  discriminatory 
component.’79 

Law No. 2005-102 on equal opportunities and the integration of disabled persons, which 
defines  an  unjustified  failure  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  as  a  form  of 
discrimination, continues to limit the duty of reasonable accommodation to persons who 
are officially recognised as disabled workers. 

As regards direct discrimination on the ground of age, Article 6 of Law 2008-496 (Article 
L1133-2  LC)  allows  each  employer  to  create  and  justify  exceptions  to  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination  on  the  ground  of  age,  which  appears  to  delegate  to  individual  employers 
the possibility given to Government to establish legitimate differences in treatment aimed 
at the protection of employees who are victims of their age.80 Therefore, this would not 
appear to satisfy the requirements of CJEU case-law on age. 

2.2.1  Situation testing 

a) 

Legal framework 

In France situation testing is clearly permitted in national law. 

Article 45 of Law No. 2006-396 on equal opportunities of 31 March 200681 created Article 
225-3-1  of  the  Penal  Code  which  codifies  the  higher  court’s  jurisprudence  on  the 
admissibility  of  situation  testing  for  all  prohibited  grounds  of  discrimination  to  establish 
discrimination  and  to  prove  the  criminal  offence  of  discrimination  provided  by  Articles 
225-1 and 225-2 of the Penal Code.  

Although it is admissible as evidence of discrimination in criminal matters, the trial judge 
is  not  bound  to  attribute  any  value  to  this  evidence  unless  they  are  satisfied  of  its 
reliability which is often challenged by defendants.  

While in criminal matters the admissibility of evidence is not bound by criteria of fairness 
and  evidence  can  be  presented  by  every  means,  situation  testing  is  not  deemed 

79   France, Law of 27 May 2008, Article 4: ‘Toute personne qui s'estime victime d'une discrimination directe ou 
indirecte présente devant la juridiction compétente les faits qui permettent d'en présumer l'existence. Au vu 
de ces éléments, il appartient à la partie défenderesse de prouver que la mesure en cause est justifiée par 
des éléments objectifs étrangers à toute discrimination. Le présent article ne s'applique pas devant les 
juridictions pénales’. 

80   France, Law of 27 May 2008, Article 6, modifying Article 1133-2 LC: ‘Les différences de traitement fondées 
sur l'âge ne constituent pas une discrimination lorsqu'elles sont objectivement et raisonnablement justifiées 
par un but légitime, notamment par le souci de préserver la santé ou la sécurité des travailleurs, de 
favoriser leur insertion professionnelle, d'assurer leur emploi, leur reclassement ou leur indemnisation en 
cas de perte d'emploi, et lorsque les moyens de réaliser ce but sont nécessaires et appropriés’. 

81   France, Law No. 2006-396 on Equal Opportunities (Loi sur l’égalité des chances) of 31 March 2006 (Loi no 

2006-396 du 31 mars 2006 pour l’égalité des chances), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jopdf/common/jo_pdf.jsp?numJO=0&dateJO=20060402&numTexte=1&page
Debut=04950&pageFin=04964 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
admissible  before  the  civil  courts,  where  evidence  is  bound  by  rules  of  legality  and 
fairness, as it is considered as an unfair form of evidence. To date, it has not been used 
before the administrative courts. 

b) 

Practice 

In France situation testing is used in practice. 

It  was  developed  by  anti-racism  NGOs  and  the  equality  body,  but  is  also  used  by 
individual  claimants  and  thus  the  public  prosecutor.  It  has  been  used  in  racial  and 
disability  discrimination  cases.  Some  organisations  have  recently  used  it  in  age 
discrimination cases in relation to access to employment.  

This  method  has  also  been  used  to  trap  discriminating  parties  in  situations  which  leave 
no  trace  of  discriminatory  behaviour,  such  as  pre-contractual  relations  leading  to  a 
refusal of access to goods and services (such as night clubs or rental housing) or access 
to employment. It offers a record of an objective situation from which discrimination can 
be  inferred,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  by  way  of  witnesses  or  written  documents 
relating to the discriminatory basis for the decision.  

In a decision of 7 June 2005 the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation admitted as 
evidence an instance of telephone testing, established by way of the testimony of a third 
party  and  the  filing  of  the  tape  recording  of  the  telephone  conversation,  in  order  to 
support  criminal  charges  of  discrimination  in  access  to  rental  accommodation  on  the 
basis of Articles 225-1 and 225-2 of the Penal Code.82  

The  first  court  of  appeal  decision  following  the  adoption  of  Article  225-3-1  of  the  Penal 
Code providing for the admissibility of testing evidence in criminal cases of discrimination 
was issued by the Paris Court of Appeal.83 SOS Racism, an anti-racism NGO, organised a 
wide-ranging testing operation at a number of nightclubs in Paris. The situation involved 
two  couples of  North African or African origin seeking admission to an establishment.  If 
they  were  denied  access,  they  were  followed  by  two  couples  of  European  origin.  They 
were all photographed to demonstrate that they were all wearing comparable outfits. The 
teams were accompanied by a third-party witness, who could attest to the pretexts given 
to  the  couples  who  were  denied  access.  Only  one  test  was  undertaken  for  each 
establishment and some of the participants were not available to testify,  although some 
of them were present for each test. A criminal complaint was immediately filed  with the 
police against four nightclubs after the European couples were admitted.  

The  door  attendants  testified  that  many  clients  of  African  or  North  African  origin  were 
admitted.  SOS  Racism’s  third-party  witness  testified  precisely  as  to  the  discriminatory 
comments used by the door attendants when denying access but confirmed that she saw 
clients of North African or African origin who were admitted.  The court found that  there 
were  people  of  foreign  origin  who  were  admitted  and  that  the  date  the  testers’ 
photograph  was  taken  was  not  sufficiently  definitely  established  to  admit  it  as  relevant 
evidence.  In  evaluating  whether  the  tests  were  conclusive  and  sufficient  to  establish 
discrimination, the court held that, in the context of evidence by way of testing: 

- 

- 

the  refusal  to  admit  just  one  person  or  group  of  foreign  origin  was  insufficient  to 
establish  that  the  behaviour  of  the  door  staff  was  triggered  by  discriminating 
criteria; 
if one takes into consideration the way nightclubs operate, the time lapse between 
the  ‘foreign’  group  and  the  following  group  is  very  significant,  as  it  may  justify 
different responses. 

82   Court of Cassation, Criminal Chamber, No. 04-87354 of 07 June 2005. 
83   Paris Court of Appeal, No. 07.04974, Billau v. SOS Racism, 17 March 2008. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Considering  the  testimony  of  the  defendants’  representatives  who  witnessed  the 
admission of clients of foreign origin, the testing in itself, which established the refusal to 
admit  a  small  number  of  people,  was  deemed  insufficient  to  prove  discrimination.  The 
court found that it should have been corroborated by other sources of evidence. 

In autumn 2008, the HALDE (former equality body) undertook a testing exercise with the 
prospect  of  generating  criminal  proceedings,  attempting  to  meet  the  evidence 
requirements of the criminal courts, in a context where testimonial evidence was in itself 
insufficient to trigger a conviction. In total, 12 cases were prosecuted by the State and all 
of  them  were  dismissed  on  the  ground  that  undertaking  situation  testing  by  fictitious 
candidates,  investigating  and  transmitting  cases  to  the  state  prosecution  puts  the 
equality  body  in  a  position  where  the  value  of  the  evidence  is  altered,  due  to  the 
accumulation of functions undertaken by the HALDE in the procedure.84 

Situation testing has not yet been used as evidence in civil cases. However, considering 
the inadmissibility of evidence obtained illegally in civil cases and the strict requirements 
of fairness enforced in civil procedure, it is doubtful that situation  testing would be held 
admissible  based  on  general  rules  of  evidence.  In  1991,  the  Court  of  Cassation  decided 
that video or sound recording, and even photocopies, obtained without the knowledge of 
a party, was not admissible in civil matters.85 

2.3  Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of indirect discrimination 

In France, indirect discrimination is defined and prohibited in national law.  

Since Law No. 2001-1066 of 16 November 2001 came into force, indirect discrimination 
has  been  covered  by  non-criminal  legislation  covering  all  prohibited  grounds  of 
discrimination (Article 1132-1 LC and following and L1141-1 LC, Article 1 of the Mermaz 
Law  on  landlords  and  tenants  No.  89-462  of  6  July  1989,  further  to  amendments 
introduced by the Law of 17 January 2002, Article 6 of Law No. 83-634 of 13 July 1983 
on  the  rights  and  obligations  of  civil  servants.  These  texts  list  the  grounds  and  the 
prohibited discriminatory behaviours.  

Law  No.  2008-496  of  27  May  2008  introduces  at  Article  1  paragraph  2  a  definition  of 
indirect  discrimination,  which  provides  as  follows:86  ‘Indirect  discrimination  shall  be 
deemed  to  occur  where  an  apparently  neutral  provision,  criterion  or  practice,  which,  on 
one of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 1, gives rise to a particular disadvantage for 
persons  in  comparison  with  other  persons,  unless  that  provision,  criterion  or  practice  is 
objectively  justified  by  a  legitimate  aim  and  the  means  of  achieving  that  aim  are 
appropriate and necessary’.  

b) 

Justification test for indirect discrimination 

Article  1,  paragraph  2,  of  Law  No.  2008-496  of  27  May  2008  provides  for  the  following 
justification test for indirect discrimination: ‘(…)unless that provision, criterion or practice 
is  objectively  justified  by  a  legitimate  aim  and  the  means  of  achieving  that  aim  are 
appropriate and necessary’. 

84   Paris High Court, No. 0907108445, 07 January 2011. 
85   Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, No. 89-44605, 20 November 1991.  
86   France, Law of 27 May 2008, Article 1 : ‘Constitue une discrimination indirecte une disposition, un critère ou 
une pratique neutre en apparence, mais entraînant, pour l’un des motifs mentionnés au premier alinéa, un 
désavantage particulier pour des personnes par rapport à d’autres personnes, à moins que cette disposition, 
ce critère ou cette pratique ne soit objectivement justifié par un but légitime et que les moyens pour réaliser 
ce but ne soient nécessaires et appropriés’. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
However,  the  transposition  of  the  shift  of  the  burden  of  proof  resulting  from  Law  No. 
2008-496  creates  ambiguity,  as  opposed  to  the  former  drafting  of  the  burden  of  proof 
which  was  based  on  the  presentation  of  ‘elements  of  facts”  ...  from  which  it  may  be 
presumed…’.  It  now  provides  that  claimant  presents  elements  of  facts  that  lead  to  the 
presumption  of  the  existence  of  direct  or  indirect  discrimination’.87  These  terms  do  not 
correspond to existing legal standards and therefore do not give clear indications to the 
judge as to the burden of proof for the claimant. It appears, however, to be compatible 
with the directives and their application by the CJEU. 

At  this  stage,  there  are  very  few  higher  court  decisions  and  the  decisions  of  the  lower 
courts remain inconsistent. Effective implementation by trial judges and non-professional 
labour court judges will require time and training. 

However,  the  Court  of  Cassation  has  commented  on  arguments  which  could  be  used  to 
justify  unequal  remuneration.  They  must  be  based  on  the  justification  of  an  objective 
difference  proportional  to  the  difference  in  payment88  and  therefore  defeat  the  unequal 
treatment argument.  

Nevertheless, the Court of Cassation has also provided an evaluation of a legitimate aim 
to justify differential remuneration on economic grounds.89 

In Banque Finaref, the Court of Cassation concluded that the limitation of compensation 
for  redundancy  because  an  employee  was  two  years  away  from  full  retirement  was  a 
practice using an apparently neutral criterion that could constitute indirect discrimination 
on  the  ground  of  age.90  However,  the  court  decided  that  it  met  the  requirement  of 
reasonableness  and  proportionality  provided  by  the  exception  authorised  by  Article  6  of 
Directive  2000/78/EC  and  therefore  concluded  that  this  compensation  scheme  was  not 
discriminatory. 

In 2012, the Conseil d’Etat first used the concept of indirect discrimination in relation to a 
case concerning discrimination on the ground of disability and a reduction in the variable 
portion of the salary of a magistrate with the public prosecution office who had become 
deaf.91  The  claimant  had  seen  his  functions  redefined  in  order  to  allow  him  to  maintain 
his  professional  activity:  his  pleading  duties  were  replaced  with  administrative  duties. 
The  Conseil  d’Etat  decided  that  the  universal  application  of  a  rule  defining  the  scope  of 
variable  salary  in  reference  to  hearing  duties  was  unfavourable  to  the  claimant  and, 
considering his functions were the result of accommodation of disability, the decision was 
not reasonable and proportionate. Therefore, the rule applicable to variable salaries had 
to be redefined to counter the adverse impact, so as to prevent salary loss in relation to 
the  variable  portion  and  only  take  into  consideration  the  claimant’s  performance  in 
carrying out his redefined duties.  

c) 

Comparison in relation to age discrimination 

In France the law does not specify how a comparison is to be made in relation to age. 

87   France, Law of 27 May 2008, Article 4 : ‘Toute personne qui s'estime victime d'une discrimination directe ou 

indirecte présente devant la juridiction compétente les faits qui permettent d'en présumer l'existence’. 
88   Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, M. Gabriel Aguera et al c. Société M2PCI et al., No. 03-40465, 16 

February 2006.  

89   Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, ESRF c. M. X., confirmed in another matter against ESRF on 17 April 

2008 (Soc. 819 FS-P+B). 

90   Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, No. 09-42071, 17 November 2010. 
91   Conseil d’Etat, Volot-Pfiser v. Ministry of Justice, No. 347703, 11 July 2012. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.3.1  Statistical evidence 

a) 

Legal framework 

In France there are national rules permitting data collection. 

Data  collection  is  governed  by  Law  78-17  of  6  January  1978  on  information  systems,92 
data  and  the  protection  of  freedom  and  covers  the  collection  and  manipulation  of 
personal  information  relating  to  both  computerised  and  non-computerised  information 
and  files.  This  legislation  is  enforced  by  the  French  Data  Protection  Authority 
(Commission nationale informatique et liberté, CNIL).  

Personal information is  defined in Article 2  of the Law as  any information relating to an 
identified  physical  person  or  to  a  person  who  is  directly  or  indirectly  identifiable  in 
reference to an identification number or personal attributes.  

Article 8 I defines sensitive data, the collection of which is forbidden except as provided 
for in Article 8 II. Sensitive data is any information linked to a person’s name relating to 
race,  ethnic  origin,  philosophical  and  political  opinions,  religion,  union  activities,  health, 
sexual  activity  (which  is  deemed  by  the  CNIL  to  cover  sexual  orientation).  Neither  an 
employer  nor  anyone,  in  the  course  of  business,  may  gather  this  information  except  in 
certain  regulated  circumstances  related  to  specific  small-scale  studies  or  in  arguing  a 
case before the courts (cf. Article 8 II of the CNIL Law).  

Data  collection  and  handling  activities  are  subject  to  a  declaration  for  authorisation  by 
the  CNIL  pursuant  to  Articles  22  ff.  of  the  Law.  Violation  of  the  obligation  to  declare  or 
obtain  an  authorisation  for  collecting  and  handling  data  is  subject  to  criminal  and 
administrative  sanctions.  In  case  of  violation,  the  perpetrator  will  be  prosecuted  in 
accordance with Article 226-19 PC.  

Article  8  II,  paragraph  5  of  the  Law  states  that  personal  data,  without  exception  for 
sensitive  data,  can  be  used  to  adduce  and  present  evidence  in  the  context  of  any 
administrative or judicial proceeding pursuant to the defence or exercise of a legal right 
without declaration or authorisation. Thus, claimants alleging racial discrimination are not 
required  to  obtain  an  authorisation  from  the  CNIL  in  order  to  request  a  court  order  to 
collect personal data from an employer. The CNIL is not legally competent to interfere in 
the judicial process.  

Article 8 II, paragraph 7 of the Law authorises the statistical treatment of personal data 
by national government statistics institutes, under the supervision of the CNIL.  

There  is  no  general  principle  forbidding  the  collection  of  sensitive  data.  However,  all 
collection and handling is subject to authorisation - including for the purpose of research 
-  except,  as  discussed  above,  for  presenting  evidence  in  judicial  and  administrative 
proceedings.  

National statistics institutes regularly publish data relating to the economic situation and 
employment of people in relation to age and disability. 

National  government  statistics  agencies  (INSEE,  DARES,  DRESS  and  INED)93  refuse  to 
collect data on race and ethnic origin in the national census except regarding nationality 

92   France, Law 78-17 of 6 January 1978 on information systems, data and freedoms (Loi No. 78-17 du 6 

janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés), available at: 
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000886460 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

93   The National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études 
économiques, INSEE)); the Directorate for Research, Studies and Statistics of the Ministry of Labour, 
Employment, Vocational Training and Social Dialogue(Direction de l’animation de la recherche, des études et 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
and the origin of first degree ascendants for limited secondary studies. Therefore, racial 
and  ethnic  statistical  indicators,  allowing  policy  impact  evaluation  to  be  undertaken,  or 
created for monitoring purposes, do not exist.  

However,  such  data  can  be  collected  in  small-scale  multi-criteria  surveys  and  studies 
under  the  supervision  of  the  national  statistics  agencies  (based  on  a  maximum 
representative  sample  of  5,000  selected  people).  The  data  are  not  collected  in 
institutional or corporate records, such as employers’ records. The treatment of such data 
must  be  confidential,  anonymous  and  reserved  for  the  external  group  monitoring  the 
implementation  of  the  anti-discrimination  programme.  Once  the  study  has  been 
completed,  the  data  collection  programme  must  be  destroyed  immediately.  For  studies 
conducted by survey, the answers must be anonymous and their use exclusively reserved 
for use in the context of the study by those persons responsible for the study.  

The CNIL issued a recommendation on 5 July 2005 on the collection of data by employers 
in  order  to  monitor  discrimination  in  the  workplace.  The  design  and  implementation  of 
positive action measures are subject to the same rules as other activities. The use of data 
to  produce  ethno-racial  profiles  is  not  authorised  by  law  and  is  considered  abusive 
conduct.  The  CNIL  accepts  that  each  protocol  be  evaluated  but  it  requires  that  they  be 
allowed on a case-by-case basis.  

In  a  decision  of  15  November  2007,  the  Constitutional  Council  declared  that  studies 
relating to diversity of origin, discrimination and integration could be based on objective 
information but that ethnic origin and race are not objective concepts and are contrary to 
Article 1 of the Constitution.94  

In April 2012, the Defender of Rights and the CNIL published joint guidelines for human 
resources managers in order to  explain to them how they  could  develop a methodology 
to  produce  quantitative  management  indicators  in  relation  to  the  promotion  of  diversity 
which would be in compliance with the current requirements of the law. They essentially 
develop  the  practical  implications  of  the  CNIL’s  recommendations  and  define  the 
compliance procedures to be implemented by the CNIL. 

In  France  statistical  evidence  is  permitted  by  national  law  in  order  to  establish  indirect 
discrimination. 

Article 8 II, paragraph 5 of Law 78-17 of 6 January 1978 states that personal data can be 
used in the context of any administrative  or judicial proceeding pursuant to the defence 
or  exercise  of  a  legal  right.  However,  the  national  data  protection  agency  (CNIL)  is 
reluctant  to  allow  the  French  equality  body  (Defender  of  Rights)  to  avail  itself  of  this 
exception  to  classify  data  based  on  origin  resulting  from  its  investigations  and 
systematically requires that it request authorisation. 

General  rules  of  civil  and  criminal  procedure  and  the  provisions  transposing  Directives 
2000.43.EC and 2000.78.EC do not refer expressly to the use of statistical evidence. 

However, the general principles of interpretation allow judges to refer to the directives in 
order  to  interpret  national  law  and  their  explicit  reference  to  the  use  of  statistics  as  a 

des statistiques, DARES); the Directorate for Research, Studies, Assessment and Statistics of the Ministry of 
Social Affairs, Health and Women’s Rights (Direction de la recherche, de l’évaluation, des études et des 
statistiques, DRESS)); and the French Institute for Demographic Studies (Institut national des études 
démographiques, INED). 

94   Constitutional Council, No. 2007-557 DC, 15 November 2007, available at: http://www.conseil-
constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-
1959/2007/2007-557-dc/decision-n-2007-557-dc-du-15-novembre-2007.1183.html (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
legal means of evidence of discrimination should be sufficient to justify  the admissibility 
of statistics in evidence.  

The  general  principles  of  evidence  in  criminal  cases  allow  proof  to  be  provided  by  any 
means and consider the means of evidence to be unlimited. Therefore, admissible means 
of evidence should include the use of statistics. Situation testing is representative of the 
sort of statistics which the criminal courts regularly admit as evidence.  

In labour law, the constant jurisprudence of the Social Chamber of the Court of Cassation 
in  matters  of  discrimination  has  favoured  an  approach  based  on  access  to  evidence  in 
order to allow, when necessary, the comparative analysis of the situation of the claimant 
against  that  of  allegedly  non-discriminated  parties.  This  comparative  approach 
necessarily  allows  claimant  to  establish  a  statistically  significant  difference  based  on  an 
analysis of evidence emanating from the employer regarding the respective situations of 
employees  based  on  the  prohibited  grounds  of  discrimination,  including  ethnic  origin, 
race, religion, age, sexual orientation and disability.  

b) 

Practice 

In  France,  statistical  evidence  in  order  to  establish  indirect  discrimination  is  used  in 
practice. 

Statistics resulting from the comparative situation  of employees of a common employer 
are now commonly used in labour law, based on the comparative approach developed by 
the CJEU in discrimination cases, and repeatedly recognised by the Court of Cassation in 
relation to anti-trade-union discrimination and other grounds of discrimination.95  

However,  statistics  resulting  from  research  reports  have  not  been  used  in  civil  and 
administrative procedures.  Their admissibility would be subject to an  evaluation  of their 
relevance  to  the  case  in  question,  but  does  not  raise  per  se  ethical  or  methodological 
problems.  The  concepts  of  race,  origin  and  ethnicity  are  not  defined  by  French  law,  as 
they  are  not  legal  categories.  Sensitive  data  and  data  based  on  origin  are  admissible 
before  the  courts.96  They  are  empirically  constructed  and  without  technical  constraints, 
their  value  being  essentially  subject  to  the  evaluation  of  the  judge.  However,  they  are 
used regularly by the national equality body (HALDE and Defender of Rights).  

There  is  no  indication  that  foreign  law  examples  have  been  used  in  order  to  justify  the 
use of statistical evidence before the French courts. However, decisions of the CJEU have 
been at the core of all the arguments supporting the comparative approach to evidence 
of discrimination. 

In essence, the difficulty in adducing statistical evidence relates to the availability of data 
that  can  be  relied  upon  in  relation  to  issues  raised  in  a  specific  case.  For  instance,  the 
HALDE  reviewed  all  the  available  studies  and  statistics  relating  to  age  and  employment 
and  its  review  revealed  that,  regarding  the  matter  of  age,  the  national  indicators  have 
not been constructed to sustain anti-discrimination policy or legal action. Therefore, they 
are  either  too  old  or  too  incomplete  and  do  not  facilitate  analysis  to  ascertain  national 
trends or analysis of age discrimination in access to employment.  

As  regards the use  of statistics in cases  relating to the ground of  origin, the problem is 
amplified by the absence of a recognised methodological framework to produce statistics 
on the basis of origin and, more generally, the unavailability of data on origin in France.  

95   Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, P+B Fluchère, Dick and CFDT v SNCF, No. 1027, 28 March 2000, ; CA 
Paris 17 October 2003. Appeal from Paris High Court 22 November 2002, D.O. July 2003 p. 284, ‘Moulin 
Rouge’ SOS Racisme and Marega v Beuzit et Association du Moulin. 

96   Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, Airbus, No. K 10-15873, 15 December 2011. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In this context, though authorised by law, the use of statistics is rare and therefore risky 
and  burdensome.  It  has  essentially  been  based  on  deductions  made  from  lists  of 
employees on the basis of their last names and/or nationality.  

In its decision of 14 June 2001,97 the Court of Cassation decided that, in matters related 
to  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  trade  union  activities,  the  offence  of  discrimination 
may  be  established  by  comparative  evidence  and  the  judge  has  an  obligation  to 
investigate  the  situation  of  the  employee  comparative  to  that  of  others  and  to  actively 
request the production of the necessary evidence by the defendant.  

Failure  to  undertake  such  a  comparative  analysis  is  the  equivalent  of  refusing  the 
claimant access to the enforcement of their rights to protection against discrimination.  

The  use  of  a  quantitative  analysis  of  the  results  of  recruitment  procedures  excluding 
candidates  on  the  grounds  of  origin  and  age  was  expressly  recognised  by  the  courts  of 
appeal of Paris, Toulouse and Poitiers as a valid approach to establishing a presumption 
of discrimination.98  

In the Airbus case, the Toulouse court of appeal referred to the HALDE’s investigation to 
reach a  finding of discrimination on the ground of origin further to a  claim alleging that 
people  of  North  African  origin  were  hired  for  short-term  contracts  at  Airbus  but  almost 
never  for  contracts  of  indefinite  duration.  The  claimant  was  employed  as  a  specialist 
worker  by  Airbus  for  a  short-term  contract  from  October  2000  to  September  2001.  He 
was  contacted  directly  by  Airbus  in  October  2004  for  a  second  contract  from  January 
2005 to July 2006 for an employment at a certain level. In autumn 2005, he applied for 
an  indefinite  duration  contract  for  a  vacancy  relating  to  a  function  with  indeterminate 
classification. Another short-term employee of French origin was selected. He held a post 
at  the  same  level  with  the  same  company  but  this  was  his  first  short-term  contract.  In 
addition,  he  worked  at  another  site  of  the  same  employer  and  had  only  been  in 
employment  since  January  2005.  Furthermore,  the  candidate  of  French  origin,  who  was 
ultimately  hired,  did  not  perform  well  in  the  workplace,  but  his  application  nevertheless 
received a better rating. The evidence was based on enquiries  by the HALDE relating to 
the list of employees, which indicated that among the staff recruited between 2000 and 
2006,  all  had  French  citizenship  and  only  two  had  a  last  name  of  North  African  origin. 
Moreover,  for  the  period  between  January  2005  and  July  2006,  of  the  43  employees 
hired  for  contracts  of  indefinite  duration,  none  had  a  last  name  of  North  African  origin. 
This  evidence  was  sufficient  to  trigger  a  presumption  of  discrimination.99  The  decision 
was confirmed by the Court of Cassation.100 

2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of harassment 

In France harassment is prohibited in national law and is defined.  

It takes the form of both sexual harassment and moral harassment. 

There  are  two  coexisting  legal  regimes:  a  general  legal  regime  which  is  not  defined  in 
relation  to  a  list  of  prohibited  grounds  of  discrimination,  applicable  to  any  relevant 
employment  situation,  and  a  legal  regime  pursuant  to  the  definition  of  discrimination. 

97   Court of Cassation, Criminal Chamber, CFDT Interco, No. 2792, 99-108, 14 June 2000; see also below 

footnote No. 41. 

98   Court of Appeal of Paris, L’Oreal v. SOS Racism, No. 06/07900, 06 July 2007; Court of Appeal of  Poitiers, 

Mont-Louis Bonnaire v. Crédit Agricole, No. 08.00461, 17 February 2009; Court of Cassation, Social 
Chamber, Airbus, No. K 10-15873, 15 December 2011. 

99   Toulouse Court of Appeal, No. R 08.06630, 19 February 2010. 
100  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, No. K 10-15873, 15 December 2011. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Law  No.  2008-496  includes,  at  Article  1,  paragraph  3,  a  definition  of  harassment  as  a 
form  of  discrimination,  providing  a  distinct  definition  which  does  not  require  repeated 
acts:  

‘any  behaviour  related  to  one  of  the  grounds  mentioned  in  paragraph  1  and  any 
behaviour  of  a  sexual  nature  to  which  a  person  is  subjected,  with  the  purpose  or 
effect  of  violating  his  or  her  dignity  or  of  creating  an  intimidating,  hostile, 
degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’.101 

There  is  a  legal  advantage  to  invoking  harassment  in  relation  to  a  prohibited  ground  of 
discrimination,  since  remedies  relating  to  discrimination  include  annulment  of  the 
measure,  greater  compensation  and  the  possibility  of  reintegration.  It  must  be  shown 
that the harassment was related to a ground of discrimination. 

The  general  regime  of  harassment  is  sanctioned  by  criminal  law  (Articles  222-33  and 
222-33-2 PC) and labour law (Articles L1152-1, L1153-1 and Article 6 of Law No. 83-634 
of 13 July 1983 on civil servants). It is applicable to both the private and public sectors 
and  its  definition  covers  acts  perpetrated  by  superiors  as  well  as  by  colleagues.  The 
Labour Code specifically states that no employee should be the victim of such behaviour 
or  be  sanctioned  for  having  testified  or  complained  in  relation  thereto  (Article  L1152-2 
LC).  

In  a  decision  of  4  May  2012,  the  Constitutional  Council  declared  the  provisions  of  the 
Penal  Code  (Article  222-33)  regarding  harassment  unconstitutional  on  the  ground  that 
the  prohibited  behaviour  was  defined  as  ‘Harassment  is  the  fact  of  harassing’,  and  did 
not provide sufficient details regarding the acts that were the target of criminal sanction, 
in  violation  of  the  requirements  of  criminal  law  that  the  behaviour  sanctioned  must  be 
precisely  defined.102  The  Government  adopted  Law  No.  2012-954  of  6  August  2012  to 
amend  the  definition  of  sexual  harassment.  Article  L1153-1  LC  now  defines  sexual 
harassment  as  ‘repeated  statements  or  acts’  or  pressure  that  is  repeated  or  not  ‘of  a 
sexual  nature  that  violate  a  person’s  dignity  because  of  their  humiliating  or  degrading 
content  or  because  they  generate  an  intimidating,  hostile  or  offensive  environment’,  as 
well as ‘pressure with the perceived or real aim of obtaining sexual favours for a person’s 
own benefit or  the benefit of a third party.103 The courts have decided that homosexual 
sexual advances are covered by the prohibition of sexual harassment.104 

In the general regime applicable to harassment, Article L1154-1 LC provides for the shift 
in  the  burden  of  proof  in  the  same  terms  as  those  used  in  Directives  2000/43/EC  and 
2000/78/EC.  

101  France, Law of 27 May 2008, Article 1 paragraph 3: ‘1° Tout agissement lié à l'un des motifs mentionnés au 
premier alinéa et tout agissement à connotation sexuelle, subis par une personne et ayant pour objet ou 
pour effet de porter atteinte à sa dignité ou de créer un environnement intimidant, hostile, dégradant, 
humiliant ou offensant.’ 

102  Constitutional Council, QPC No. 2012-240 QPC, 04 May 2012, available at: http://www.conseil-
constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-
1959/2012/2012-279-qpc/decision-n-2012-279-qpc-du-5-octobre-2012.115699.html. 

103  Article L1153-1 of the Labour Code, available at: 

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000026268379&cidTexte=LEGITEXT
000006072050 (accessed 6 September 2016): ‘Aucun salarié ne doit subir des faits: 1° Soit de harcèlement 
sexuel, constitué par des propos ou comportements à connotation sexuelle répétés qui soit portent atteinte 
à sa dignité en raison de leur caractère dégradant ou humiliant, soit créent à son encontre une situation 
intimidante, hostile ou offensante ; 2° Soit assimilés au harcèlement sexuel, consistant en toute forme de 
pression grave, même non répétée, exercée dans le but réel ou apparent d'obtenir un acte de nature 
sexuelle, que celui-ci soit recherché au profit de l'auteur des faits ou au profit d'un tiers’. 

104  Paris Court of Appeal, 18e Ch., section C, Ste Euro Disney v. Vallinas, Juris Data No. 023467, 8 October 

1992. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
b) 

Scope of liability for harassment 

Where harassment is perpetrated by an employee, in France both the employer and the 
employee are liable. 

French  principles  of  civil  liability  and  French  labour  law  provide  that  legal  persons  are 
responsible  for  the  actions  of  their  employees  and  legal  representatives,  which  covers 
employees  and  managers  of  employees,  trade  unions  and  NGOs.  In  addition,  the 
definition  of  harassment  as  prohibited  by  French  labour  law  covers  actions  by  people  in 
authority  and  that  of  colleagues  as  well  (Articles  1151-1,  1152-1  and  1153-1  LC). 
Furthermore, it provides for an obligation on the part of the employer to guarantee a safe 
work  environment  free  of  harassment  (Article  1152-4  LC).  This  provision  creates  an 
obligation  on  the  part  of  the  employer  to  take  all  necessary  measures  to  put  an  end  to 
harassment in the workplace. In the public services the same principles apply. 

2.5  Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) 

a) 

Prohibition of instructions to discriminate 

In  France  instructions  to  discriminate  are  prohibited  in  national  law.  Instructions  are 
defined. 

In France instructions explicitly constitute a form of discrimination. 

Instructions to discriminate are not covered as such by the Labour Code, the Civil Code 
or  the  Penal  Code.  Law  No.  2008-496,  which  provides  the  definition  of  discrimination 
applicable to all legal provisions, includes Article 1(3)(2), instructions to discriminate as a 
form of discrimination, providing the following definition:  

‘the fact of instructing anyone to adopt the behaviour defined in Article 2’.105  

There is no specific provision adopted regarding incitement to discriminate, but it results 
from  the  application  of  general  principles  of  liability.  Incitement  and  instructions  to 
discriminate  correspond  to  the  notion  of  complicity  in  Articles  121-6  and  121-7  PC  and 
the general principles of liability in civil law.  

The  Law  on  the  Press  of  1881  prohibits  provocation  to  perpetrate  racial,  religious,  sex, 
disability and sexual orientation discrimination, as well as complicity (Articles 23 and 24 
of  the  Law  on  the  Press  of  1881  for  public  provocation,  and  Article  R625-7  PC  for  non-
public provocation).106 The Court of Cassation has clearly established that the prohibited 
provocation refers to discrimination defined by Articles 225-1 and 225-2 PC.107 

b) 

Scope of liability for instructions to discriminate 

In France the instructor and the discriminator are liable. 

In labour law an employee’s superior and the employer entity bear liability for the actions 
of their subordinates.  

105  France, Law of 27 May 2008, Article 1(3): ‘Le fait d'enjoindre à quiconque d'adopter un comportement 

prohibé par l'article 2’. 

106  France, Law of 29 July 1881 on Freedom of the Press (Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse), 

available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070722&dateTexte=20080312 
(accessed 6 September 2016). 

107  Court of Cassation, Criminal Chamber, Cass. crim. 12 April 1976, Cass. crim. 22 May 1989. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
French  principles  of  civil  liability  and  French  labour  law  provide  that  legal  persons  are 
responsible  for  the  actions  of  their  employees  and  legal  representatives,  which  covers 
employees and managers of employees, trade unions and NGOs.  

In  a  few  cases,  the  exacting  burden  of  proof  with  regard  to  the  liability  of  senior 
management  was  met  by  way  of  inferences  from  the  facts  because  the  court  was 
persuaded  of  its  active  involvement  in  what  was  a  discriminatory  policy.108  In  fact,  it  is 
the manager giving instructions who is targeted by the procedure in  criminal cases; the 
court is looking for evidence of the involvement of the decision-maker.109  

2.6  Reasonable  accommodation  duties  (Article  2(2)(b)(ii)  and  Article  5 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Implementation  of  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  for  people  with 
disabilities in the area of employment 

In France the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is included in all the legislation 
applicable to employment. It is defined. 

Article  L1132-1  LC  provides:  ‘No  salaried  employee  may  be  sanctioned,  dismissed  or  be 
subject  to  a  discriminatory  measure  by  reason  of  his  or  her  disability  as  the  law 
guarantees the principle of equal treatment of disabled workers’ and, in paragraph 2, that 
in the case of litigation relating to the application of this principle, the shift in the burden 
of  proof  provided  for  in  Article  L1134-1  LC,  and  resulting  from  the  transposition  of 
Directive 2000/78/EC, is applicable.  

In addition, this provision must be read in relation to Article L5213-6 LC and Article 2 of 
Law No. 2008-496 of 27 May 2008, which provide that in order to ensure respect for the 
principle of equal treatment of employees with disabilities in the workplace, as defined in 
Article  L114  of  the  CSW,  and  reasonable  accommodation  ‘(…)  in  relation  to  disabled 
workers,  as  mentioned  in  Article  5212-13  LC,  employers  shall  take  appropriate 
measures,  in  accordance  with  the  specific  situation,  to  allow  disabled  workers  to  have 
access  to  or  to  maintain  a  position  of  employment  which  corresponds  to  their 
qualifications,  to  execute  their  work,  to  progress  therein  or  to  have  access  to  training 
adapted  to  suit  their  needs’110  (author’s  translation).  Therefore,  failure  to  provide 
reasonable accommodation from application and hiring through to retirement constitutes 
discrimination as provided by Article L1132-1 LC. 

Article L3122-26 LC provides for a right to request  an adjustment of working hours, not 
only for people with disabilities, but also for the benefit of family members and carers of 
people with disabilities. The Labour Code also provides for an extension of parental leave 
after having a disabled child (Article L1225-61 LC). 

In the Volot-Pfiser case, the claimant was a magistrate with the public prosecution office 
who  became  deaf.111  His  impairment  led  to  a  redefinition  of  his  duties  and  those  of  his 
colleagues, since he could no longer participate as prosecutor in public hearings. He was 
therefore  exempted 
for 
administrative  duties.  The  hearings  he  would  normally  have  participated  in  were 
reallocated  to  other  magistrates.  In  France  the  working  conditions  of  magistrates  are 

from  hearings  and  these  obligations  were  substituted 

108  High Judicial Court of Versailles, 02 April 2001. CA Paris, Sté NIDEK Europarc, No. 4835.96, 20 March 1997. 
109  High Judicial Court of Paris 14 November 2002 No. 0019304084 Cantuel Horbette (Hotel La Villa), Essindi et 
al. Court of Appeal of Paris 17 October 2003. Appeal from High Judicial Court of Paris 22 November 2002, 
D.O. July 2003 p. 284, ‘Moulin Rouge’ SOS Racisme and Marega v. Beuzit et Association du Moulin. 

110  Article L 5212-13 LC: ‘(…) les employeurs prennent, en fonction des besoins dans une situation concrète, les 
mesures appropriées pour permettre aux travailleurs handicapés d’accéder à un emploi ou de conserver un 
emploi correspondant à leur qualification, de l’exercer ou d’y progresser ou pour qu’une formation adaptée à 
leurs besoins leur soit dispensée’. 

111  Conseil d’Etat, No. 347703, 11 July 2012. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
seriously impacted  by  their  hearings  obligations,  since  the  court  does  not  close  and  the 
hearings go  on until the roll call  listing cases to be heard  is finished, often late into the 
night. The same year this magistrate saw a significant reduction in the variable portion of 
his  remuneration  and,  in  fact,  his  premium  rate  became  the  lowest  in  the  jurisdiction. 
The justification  for this was that the premiums compensate  for the  objective burden of 
service  and  that  his  hearings  burden  had  been  reassigned  to  others  who  thus  had  their 
burden  increased.  Therefore,  the  adjustment  in  remuneration  was  considered  to  be 
objective  and  reasonable.  The  Conseil  d’Etat  reversed  the  lower  courts’  decisions  and 
decided  that,  pursuant  to  Directive  2000/78/EC,  the  duty  of  reasonable  accommodation 
on  the  part  of  the  public  employer  creates  a  corresponding  right  to  the  benefit  of  the 
magistrate,  guaranteeing  that  the  measures  taken  will  not  create  a  disadvantage  as 
regards  remuneration  or  prevent  proper  professional  progression.  Maintaining  pay  was 
part  of  the  reasonable  accommodation.  The  fact  of  taking  the  disability  into  account  to 
set  objectives  cannot  generate  unequal  treatment  as  regards  remuneration.  The  fact  of 
comparing  respective  contributions  as  a  result  of  the  accommodation  measures  taken 
creates  a  situation  whereby  reasonable  accommodation  has  an  adverse  impact  on 
remuneration  and  becomes  a  factor  in  indirect  discrimination.  An  evaluation  must  be 
made in the light of the objectives set, taking reasonable accommodation into account.  

Law  No.  2008-496  of  27  May  2008  did  not  extend  the  obligation  of  reasonable 
accommodation  to  non-salaried  and  independent  workers.  However,  in  the  Bleitrach 
case112  the  Conseil  d’Etat  recognised  a  duty  on  the  state  to  take  positive  measures  to 
provide  access  to  court  buildings  for  people  with  disabilities  working  as  auxiliaries  of 
justice (a liberal profession). The same issue could be raised regarding access to many 
public  places  where  non-employees  come  to  perform  their  work,  such  as  town  halls, 
public clinics etc. 

b) 

Practice 

The  only  applicable  limitation  to  the  obligation  of  reasonable  accommodation  is 
‘disproportionate costs’. These are defined by Article 5213-6 paragraph 2 LC, taking into 
account any  financial support available to the  employer (cf. Article 37 of  Law No. 2005-
102  on  equal  opportunities  and  the  integration  of  disabled  persons,  concerning  Article 
L5213-10  LC  on  financial  subsidies  for  the  adaptation  of  the  work  environment  awarded 
by the departmental director of labour).  

This law is supplemented by two decrees: 

- 

- 

Decree  No.  2006-134  of  9  February  2006  on  the  recognition  of  the  burden  of 
disability;113 
Decree No. 2006-501 of 3 May 2006 on the fund for the professional integration of 
disabled persons.114 

These  instruments  set  the  criteria  for  determining  the  financial  support  provided  to  the 
employer.  They  are  based  on  the  level  of  impairment  and  the  corresponding  additional 
functional  cost  of  employment  resulting  from  the  implementation  of  reasonable 
accommodation.  

112  Conseil d’Etat, No. 301572, 30 October 2010. 
113  France, Decree No. 2006-134 of 9 February 2006 on the recognition of the burden of disability (Décret no 

2006-134 du 9 février 2006 relatif à la lourdeur du Handicap), available at: http://www/creai-
nantes/asso/fr/docs/decret_2006_134/pdf (accessed 6 September 2016). 

114  France, Decree No. 2006-501 of 03 May 2006 on the fund for the professional integration of disabled 

persons (Décret No. 2006-501 du 3 mai 2006 relatif au fonds pour l'insertion des personnes handicapées 
dans la fonction publique), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000814863&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id (accessed 6 September 2016). 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Similar  provisions  are  integrated  into  Law  83-634  of  13  July  1983  on  the  rights  and 
obligations of civil servants.115 

There is no provision for disproportionate burden and the courts have not yet issued any 
decision in a context which does not involve the financial aspect of the situation. 

c) 

Definition of disability and non-discrimination protection 

The obligation of reasonable accommodation established by Article L5213-6 LC is drafted 
in such a way that people who meet the definition of disability provided by Article 114 of 
CSW but who do not wish to be registered as disabled may have difficulty in forcing their 
employer to  comply with their right to  reasonable accommodation.  They  can, however, 
argue their right to reasonable accommodation on the ground of the general protection 
against discrimination contained in Article L1132-1 ff. LC and Article 2 of Law No. 2008-
496 of 27 May 2008, and their right will be recognised by the courts.116 

These  reasonable  accommodation  obligations  can  therefore  benefit  all  employees  with 
official recognition, those who have disabled worker status, those who have suffered an 
accident  at  work  resulting  in  a  degree  of  disability  greater  than  10  %  and  who  have 
received compensation in this regard, those in receipt of disability pensions and disabled 
veterans in all situations of  employment integration, at the time of hiring and later on, 
for all types  of employment and functions,  unless making the accommodation entails a 
disproportionate burden.  

Some public servants such as magistrates, parliamentary administrators and some state 
contractual agents are not covered by transposition and this also applies to independent 
workers  and  non-registered  employees.  However,  these  groups  can  argue  the  right  to 
reasonable  accommodation  on  the  basis  of  the  principle  of  the  direct  application  of 
Directive  2000/78/EC  pursuant  to  the  jurisprudence  of  the  Conseil  d’Etat  in  three  cases 
against  the  Ministry  of  Justice:  the  Perreux,  Bleitrach  and  Volot-Pfiser  cases  (see  above 
where the court did not refer to national legislation but to direct application of Directive 
2000/78). 

d)  Duties  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  areas  other  than  employment  for 

people with disabilities 

In  France  there  is  a  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  for  people  with 
disabilities in areas other than employment. 

Education  

The  Law  on  Disability  provides  for  a  duty  to  integrate  disabled  children  into  the 
mainstream  school  system.  The  right  to  education  and  to  reasonable  accommodation 
within education of disabled children is affirmed in Articles 19 to 22 of Law No. 2005-102 
of 11 February 2005 on equal opportunities and the integration of disabled persons. 

Article  11  affirms  a  right  of  access  to  local  mainstream  schools  and  the  right  to  an 
individual educational programme.117  

115  France, Law No. 83-634 of 13 July 1983, complemented by Law 84-16 of 11 January 1984 on the civil 

service of the State, Law 84-53 of 26 January 1984 on the civil service for the local and regional levels of 
government and Law 86-33 of 9 January 1986 on the hospital civil service. 
116  Orléans Court of Appeal, X. vs La poste,  No. 10/01990, 15 November 2011.. 
117  France, Ministerial Instruction No. 2006-126 of 17 August 2006 on the implementation of the individual 
educational programme (Circulaire relative à la mise ne oeuvre et au suivi du projet personnalisé de 
scolairisation) available at: http://www.education.gouv.fr//bo/2006/32/MENE0602187C/htm (accessed 6 
September 2016). 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
failure  of 

freedom,  and 

The  Conseil  d’Etat,  in  a  decision  of  15  December  2010  (Conseil  d’Etat,  No.  344729)118 
concluded  that  adapted  access  to  education  for  disabled  children  at  preschool  level  is  a 
fundamental 
the 
accommodation  determined  by  the  individual  educational  programme,  in  this  case  an 
education  assistant,  violates  this  freedom.  The  Conseil  d’Etat  went  even  further  and 
decided  in  a  landmark  case  of  20  April  2011  (Nos.  345434119  and  345442)120  that  the 
provisions of the individual educational programme paid for by the state authorities also 
covered needs related to extracurricular activities and therefore established an obligation 
which  should  be  implemented  without  delay,  regardless  of  budgetary  and  logistic 
considerations. 

the  school  authorities  to  maintain 

Therefore,  parents  can  benefit  from  injunctive  relief  provided  by  Article  L  521-2  of  the 
Code  of  Administrative  Justice,  ordering  that  all  necessary  measures  be  taken  by  the 
education  authorities  in  order  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  implementation  of  this 
right.  

Law No. 2005-102 on equal opportunities and the integration of disabled persons further 
establishes,  through  Article  L112-4  of  the  Code  of  Education,  an  express  obligation  to 
adapt examination processes to the needs of disabled students. 

Access to goods and services except buildings and infrastructures 

Article  53  of  the  Law  on  Disability  specifically  provides  for  the  right  to  be  accompanied 
anywhere  by  an  assistance  animal  and  Article  65  establishes  the  provision  of  a  special 
card for disabled people, giving them and those accompanying them priority of access on 
public transport and in public places, waiting areas and queues. 

The  prohibition  of  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  disability  in  access  to  goods  and 
services  provided  by  Articles  225-1  and  225-2  PC  has  been  interpreted  to  impose  an 
absolute duty to comply with accessibility obligations. 

The HALDE decided that this obligation was violated by a bank’s requirement that visually 
impaired  people  mandate  someone  to  manage  their  accounts,121  and  by  an  insurer’s 
abusive refusal to insure a person with a disability which was not health threatening.122 

Except  regarding  access  to  mainstream  schools,  all  these  provisions  create  positive 
obligations  without  reference  to  alleviations  or  limitations  related  to  a  notion  of 
disproportionate burden.  

e) 

Failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities 

In  France  failure  to  meet  the  duty  of  reasonable  accommodation  does  count  as 
discrimination. 

The  employer  can  refuse  to  implement  reasonable  accommodation  in  cases  of 
disproportionate burden. Article L5212-6 paragraph 2 LC provides that ‘the refusal to take 
such  measures  [reasonable  accommodation]  may  constitute  discrimination  according  to 
Article  L1133-2  LC’.  The  claimant  thus  benefits  from  the  legal  regime  of  discrimination 

118  Conseil d’Etat, no 344729, 15 December 2010, available at: 

http://www.education.gouv.fr//bo/2006/32/MENE0602187C/htm (accessed 6 September 2016). 

119  Conseil d’Etat, no 34534, 20 April 2011, available at: 

www/legifrance/gouv/fr/affichJuriAdmin/do?oldAction=rechJuriAdmin&idTexte=CETATEXT000023897748&fa
stReqId=911059899&fastPos=7 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

120  Conseil d’Etat, no 345442, 20 April 2011, available at: 

www/legifrance/gouv/fr/affichJuriAdmin/do?oldAction=rechJuriAdmin&idTexte=CETATEXT000023897749&fa
stReqId=538455663&fastPos=12 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

121  HALDE, Deliberation 2007-296. Available at:http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr. 
122  HALDE, Deliberation 2007-234. Available at: http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr.  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
covering both direct and indirect discrimination, which gives them the benefit of the right 
to  obtain  access  to  evidence  and  of  the  shift  in  the  burden  of  proof  and  consequences 
related to the nullity of the decision.  

The law provides no precision as to when it will deem a refusal to make ‘accommodation’ 
(or take ‘necessary measures’) to be discrimination or what is a disproportionate burden. 
Moreover,  the  concept  of  reasonable  accommodation  has  never  been  interpreted  and  is 
foreign  to  French  law.  Therefore,  the  specific  content  of  this  obligation  will  have  to  be 
defined by the courts before further comment  can be made with respect to the scope of 
the burden it imposes on employers.  

The  only  decision  relating  to  the  evaluation  of  the  requirements  of  reasonable 
accommodation relates to a request for an adapted  vehicle for travel to work submitted 
by  a  civil  servant.  This  request  was  refused  on  the  basis  of  disproportionate  costs, 
considering that the required adaptations were not covered by available public money.  

The parties agreed that, without this vehicle, the claimant could not get to work and that 
no other measure could be put in place in substitution. The administrative court of Caen 
decided  that  the  obligation  of  the  employer  to  take  ‘necessary  measures  to  provide 
access  to  work’  covered  measures  allowing  the  person  to  get  to  work,  and  granted  the 
request.  It  refused  to  discuss  the  defence  of  disproportionate  costs  on  the  ground  that 
the employer did not provide evidence that they had applied for money from the fund for 
the  integration  of  disabled  persons  and  could  not  therefore  put  forward  an  argument 
related to the resulting unreasonable costs of implementing this measure.123 

f) 

Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of other grounds 

In France there is no legislative duty to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of 
other grounds in the public and/or the private sector. 

- 

Race or ethnic origin  

The  education  system  provides  for  special  classes  to  integrate  newly  arrived  foreign 
migrant children for a transitional period of between a few months and a year,  in order 
that  they  can  be  assessed  and  acquire  sufficient  language  skills  to  integrate  into 
mainstream school.124  

Law  2000-614  of  5  July  2000  provides  for  a  duty  to  implement  parking  spaces  for 
Travellers,  failing  which  the  local  authorities  must  tolerate  parking  in  the  area,  and 
Decree  2001-569  of  29  June  2001  (see  Section  3.2.10  below)  provides  the  technical 
requirements  for  these  areas.  This  law  also  provides  for  a  duty  to  accommodate  the 
temporary school attendance of Traveller children.125 

In addition, in implementing the shift in the burden  of proof provided by  Article 1134-1 
LC,  and  applying  the  test  of  proportionality  to  the  justifications  invoked  by  defendants, 
the  courts  have  started  to  discuss  whether  reasonable  measures  could  be  taken  to 
prevent  discrimination.  In  a  decision  by  the  Court  of  Appeal  of  Versailles,126  upholding 
the  ruling  by  the  lower  court,  the  court  followed  the  arguments  presented  by  the 
Defender  of  Rights  and  decided  that  the  refusal  to  send  an  employee  abroad  on  an 

123  Administrative Court of Caen, , No. 0802480, 01 October 2009. 
124  France, Ministerial Instruction No. 2012-141 of 02 October 2012 no REDE1236612C. RED - DGESCO A1-1 
relating to the organisation of the integration of newly arrived children (Circulaire relative à l’Organisation 
de la scolarité des élèves allophones nouvellement arrivés), available at: 
http://www.education.gouv.fr//pid25535/bulletin_officiel/html?cid_bo=61536 (accessed6 September 2016). 
125  France, Law No. 2000-614 of 05 July 2000 on the reception and accommodation of Travellers (Loi No. 2000-

614 du 5 juillet 2000 relative à l'accueil et à l'habitat des gens du voyage), available at: 
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000583573 (accessed6 September 2016). 

126  Versailles Court of Appeals, No. 12.03739, 05 March 2014. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
assignment to a particular country, on the ground of origin, alleging racism on the part of 
the  citizens  of  that  country  and  putting  forward  arguments  around  safety  for  the 
protection of the employee, could only be justified by documentation of the reality of this 
alleged racism and the attendant danger, and evidence of the scope of the risk, in order 
to justify the stated unreasonableness of the costs necessary to ensure the protection of 
the employee. 

- 

Religion or belief 

The jurisprudence of the Conseil d’Etat has defined a duty of reasonable accommodation 
on religious grounds of the duty of children to attend school.127  

In the public service the Ministry of Public Service ministerial instruction No. 2106 of 14 
November  2005  on  authorisation  of  absence  on  religious  grounds  reiterates  ministerial 
instruction  No.  901  of  29  September  1967  allowing  immediate  superiors  in  the  public 
service  to  authorise  requests  for  religious  holidays  not  foreseen  by  the  French  official 
calendar of holidays. This instruction provides relevant information and lists the principal 
Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist holidays.  

- 

Age 

None. 

- 

Sexual orientation 

None. 

g) 

Accessibility of services, buildings and infrastructure  

In  France  national  law  requires  services  available  to  the  public,  buildings  and 
infrastructure  to  be  designed  and  built  so  that  they  are  accessible  for  people  with 
disabilities.  Law  No.  2005-102  of  11  February  2005  on  equal  opportunities  and  the 
integration  of  disabled  persons  provides  for  an  ambitious  plan  set  out  over  10  years  to 
enforce accessibility throughout the country by 2015. Equivalent accessibility or a quality 
of service that is equivalent must be provided (Article R111-19-2 of the Construction and 
Housing Code), including public transport.  

This  plan  has  not  been  successful  and,  given  the  impossibility  of  meeting  the 
requirements  by  1  January  2015,  a  new  programme,  based  on  a  rescheduling  of  the 
building work required, has been adopted. 

At  the  Inter-ministerial  Committee  on  Disability,  on  25  September  2013,  the  Prime 
Minister announced the opening of a consultation of stakeholders in order to redefine the 
conditions  for  the  implementation  of  the  ‘Accessibility’  programme  set  out  in  the  2005 
law.  Further  to  this  consultation,  the  Government  confirmed  on  26  February  2014  the 
postponement  of  the  2015  deadline  for  ‘buildings  receiving  the  public’  and  public 
transport. This delay postpones the prosecution and issuing of sanctions provided by the 
law  of  2005  beyond  1  January  2015.  In  exchange,  operators  of  public  transport  and 
public  places  (i.e.  private  and  public  managers,  mayors  and  public  transport  providers) 
formally undertook to abide by a specific calendar for each type of works, providing for a 
timetable of between three months and nine years, according to the type of works. The 
calendar  sets  out  detailed  deadlines  for  preparing  and  programming  the  works,  taking 
the form of ‘programmed accessibility timetables’ (agendas d’accessibilité programmée – 
Ad’AP).  

127  Conseil d’Etat, 14 April 1995, Consistoire central des Israelites de France, Recueil Lebon, p. 169, Dalloz 

1995, jur. p. 481, note Koubi G. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Law  No.  2014-789  of  10  July  2014  authorising  the  Government  to  adopt  legislative 
measures  for  the  implementation  of  the  accessibility  of  public  places  enabled  the 
Government  to  determine  the  conditions  and  schedule  for  the  implementation  of 
accessibility  for  disabled  persons  in  relation  to  ‘buildings  receiving  the  public’,  public 
transport, residential buildings and roads.128 

The Government then adopted Executive Order No. 2014-1090 of 26 September 2014,129 
providing  the  possibility  to  adopt  decrees  to  specify  schedules  for  each  type  of  works 
(buildings, roads and public transport) and to proceed by means of Ad’AP. 

Three  decrees  were  adopted  to  specify  the  conditions  for  the  implementation  of  these 
timetables, one for each type of works. Decree nos. 2014-1320130 and 2014-1321131 of 3 
November  2014  relate  to  public  transport  and  Decree  No.  2014-1327132  to  public 
buildings  and  places  open  to  the  public.  In  addition,  Decree  No.  2014-1326133  was 
adopted  to  review  the  standards  of  adaptation  works  relating  to  the  accessibility  of 
existing buildings. 

Article  L111-7  of  the  Construction  and  Housing  Code  requires  public  and  residential 
buildings  to  be  designed  and  built  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  accessible  to  people  with 
disabilities.  Many  buildings,  particularly  buildings  accessible  to  the  public,  have  been 
modified. 

Regardless  of  the  postponement  of  the  plan  for  the  implementation  of  works  by  public 
authorities  to  ensure  accessibility,  at  present  new  or  renovated  buildings  which  do  not 
conform  to  accessibility  requirements  can  be  shut  down  by  administrative  order  (Article 
111-8-3  of  the  Construction  and  Housing  Code).  Access  to  public  subsidies  for 
construction  and  renovation  projects  are  conditional  on  accessibility  requirements  being 
respected (Article 111-26, paragraph IV of the Construction and Housing Code).  

In addition, the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability in access to goods 
and services provided by Articles 225-1 and 225-2 PC has been interpreted to impose a 
duty to comply with accessibility obligations.134 

The courts have held that the burden of establishing a defence of disproportionate costs 
for installing necessary equipment falls upon the defendant.135 

128  France, Law No. 2014-789 of 10 July 2014 authorising the Government to adopt legislative measures for the 

implementation of the accessibility of public places (Loi No. 2014-789 du 10 juillet 2014 habilitant le 
Gouvernement à adopter des mesures législatives pour la mise en accessibilité des établissements recevant 
du public, des transports publics, des bâtiments d'habitation et de la voirie pour les personnes handicapées) 
available at: http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000029217888&categorieLien=id 
(accessed6 September 2016). 

129  France, Executive Order No. 2014-1090 of 26 September 2014 relating to accessibility of public works 

(Ordonnance No. 2014-1090 du 26 septembre 2014 relative à la mise en accessibilité des établissements 
recevant du public, des transports publics, des bâtiments d'habitation et de la voirie pour les personnes 
handicapées), available at: 
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000029503268&categorieLien=id (accessed6 
September 2016). 

130  Available at: 

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000029701835&categorieLien=id 
(accessed6 September 2016). 

131  Available at: 

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000029707519&categorieLien=id 
(accessed6 September 2016). 

132  Available at: 

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000029708128&categorieLien=id 
(accessed6 September 2016). 

133  Available at: 

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000029708064&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id (accessed6 September 2016). 

134  Court of Cassation, Criminal Chamber, No. 05-85888, 20 June 2006. 
135  Administrative Court of Caen, No. 0802480, 01 October 2009.  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  the  case  of  the  Communauté  d’agglomération  du  pays  de  Voironnais,136  the  Conseil 
d’Etat  decided  that  Article  45  of  the  Law  of  11  February  2005  on  the  rights  of  disabled 
persons, which provides for complete accessibility of public transport, except in  the case 
of  manifest  technical  unfeasibility,  requires  that  such  unfeasibility  be  evaluated  on  a 
case-by-case  basis  each  time  works  are  to  be  undertaken.  The  assessment  of  a  project 
as  being  unfeasible  should  only  result  from  a  technical  obstacle  which  would  be 
impossible to overcome or one that would incur a manifestly disproportionate cost.  

Inaccessible premises can also give rise to legal action on the ground of discrimination in 
access to employment, which could be based on indirect discrimination pursuant to Article 
L1132-1  LC  and  Article  2  of  Law  No.  2008-496  of  27  May  2008  or,  in  the  case  of  an 
unreasonable  refusal  to  implement  the  necessary  adaptations  to  allow  access  to  a 
building,  inaccessibility  could  result  in  failure  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  on 
the basis of Article 5213-6 of the Labour Code.  

In  the  case  of  Ms  Bleitrach  against  the  State,  the  Conseil  d’Etat  found  liability  without 
fault on the part of the State on the basis of Directive 2000/78/EC, for failure to provide 
access to the court to a disabled judicial official who used a wheelchair - Ms Bleitrach is a 
qualified  lawyer  -  who  required  this  access  in  order  to  exercise  her  profession. 
Considering  the  scale  of  the  necessary  investments  throughout  France,  the  delay  in 
implementing  accessibility  was  held  to  be  reasonable  by  the  lower  courts.137  However, 
the Conseil d’Etat decided that it could not dismiss the liability for damages of the State 
solely  by  relying  on  the  deadline  for  insuring  accessibility  provided  by  the  Decree  of  17 
May  2006  which  runs  until  2015.  Directive  2000/78/EC  imposes  a  specific  obligation  in 
relation  to  professionals,  i.e.  lawyers  in  this  case,  in  the  provision  of  access  to  court 
buildings and the judge had to evaluate in this particular case whether the State had met 
its  duties  in  this  respect.  The  de  facto  inequality  before  ‘public  charges’  (i.e.  burdens 
imposed  on  citizens  by  the  State)  of  lawyers  who  use  a  wheelchair  is  such  as  to  incur 
liability  without  fault  on  the  part  of  the  State  and  the  Administrative  Supreme  Court 
awarded  EUR  20 000  in  non-material  damages,  the  claimant  having  failed  to  establish 
financial damages. 

In France, national law contains a general duty to provide accessibility in anticipation for 
people with disabilities.  

Title IV of the Law on  Disability, entitled  ‘Accessibility’, requires that  access be provided 
to persons with disabilities as regards  education  (Chapter  I), access to  employment and 
sheltered  employment  (Chapter  II),  and  the  built  environment,  transport  and  new 
technologies  (Chapter  III).  Inaccessibility  could  give  rise  to  remedies  relating  to 
discrimination in access to housing based on Law No. 2002-73 on Social Modernisation of 
17  January  2002  and  legal  action  relating  to  discrimination  in  access  to  employment 
based on Article L1132-1 LC.  

h) 

Accessibility of public documents 

Article  L111.7-3  of  the  Construction  and  Housing  Code  and  Article  78  of  the  Law  of  11 
February 2005  require  that all information  published by the State and public authorities 
must  be  accessible  for  people  with  all  types  of  disabilities,  regardless  of  the  media  in 
which  they  are  produced.  This  obligation  is  interpreted  as  requiring  that  all  information 
be published in a  form  that can be easily understood, that it be available in Braille or  a 
computer-adapted  presentation  for  the  visually  impaired,  that  human  help  and 
translation  into  French  sign  language  or  into  spoken  and  signed  language  be  made 
available etc. (Article 47 of the Law of 11 February 2005). All public services are in the 

136  Conseil d’Etat, No. 343364, 22 June 2012, available 

at:https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriAdmin.do?oldAction=rechJuriAdmin&idTexte=CETATEXT0000260
52824&fastReqId=72010635&fastPos=1 (accessed6 September 2016). 

137  Conseil d’Etat, No. 301572, 22 October 2010. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
process of implementing these requirements in the production of all published documents 
and to allow accessibility to public service employees. 

58 

 
 
 
 
3  PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE  

3.1  Personal scope 

3.1.1  EU  and  non-EU  nationals  (Recital  13  and  Article  3(2)  Directive  2000/43 

and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In  France  there  are  no  residence  or  citizenship/nationality  requirements  for  protection 
under the relevant national laws transposing the directives. 

The  general  protection  against  discrimination  covers  everyone  and  the  principle  of 
equality  is  applicable  to  non-nationals  unless  the  legislator  can  justify  a  difference  in 
treatment based on conditions of public interest.138 However, the law imposes conditions 
in access to certain rights, such as the right to work and some social benefits, restricting 
them  to  the  people  with  the  status  of  legal  foreign  resident.  In  addition,  as  was 
documented  by  a  report  prepared  by  the  Group  for  Studying  and  Combating 
Discrimination (Groupe d’Etude et de lutte contre les discriminations – GELD),139 the law 
creates some legal discrimination in access to specific professions and jobs (about 7 000 
named  jobs),  subjecting  them  to  conditions  of  citizenship,  whether  French,  of  bilateral 
partner countries (such as some African countries) or of the European Union.140 

3.1.2  Protection against discrimination (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) 

a) 

Natural and legal persons 

In  France  the  personal  scope  of  anti-discrimination  laws,  i.e.  Article  L1132-1  of  the 
Labour  Code,  Article  6  of  the  Law  83-634  on  civil  servants,  Article  225-1  of  the  Penal 
Code  and  Article  2  of  Law  No.  2008-496  of  27  May  2008,  covers  natural  and  legal 
persons for the purpose of protection against discrimination.  

In  France  the  personal  scope  of  anti-discrimination  laws  (same  provisions  as  above) 
covers natural and legal persons for the purpose of liability for discrimination. 

Physical and legal persons, whether public or private, are bound to uphold the prohibition 
against discrimination in criminal law (Articles 121-2 PC for legal persons and 432-7 PC 
for  public  authorities),  private  law  (Article  L1132-1  of  the  Labour  Code  and  Article  2  of 
Law  No.  2008-496  of  27  May  2008)  and  public  law  (Article  6  of  Law  83-634  on  civil 
servants and Article 2 of Law No. 2008-496 of 27 May 2008 and Law No. 2001-1066 on 
the fight against discrimination). 

b) 

Private and public sector including public bodies 

In  France  the  personal  scope  of  national  law  covers  the  private  and  public  sectors, 
including public bodies, for the purpose of protection against discrimination. 

In  France  the  personal  scope  of  anti-discrimination  law  covers  the  private  and  public 
sectors, including public bodies, for the purpose of liability for discrimination.  

138  Constitutional Council, 89-296 DC, 22 January 1990,  R.F.D.C. No. 2 1990, obs Favoreu. 
139  First French anti-discrimination body created in 2000, which paved the way for the establishment of the 

HALDE. 

140  GELD (2000) Publication No. 1 on legal discrimination and employment inaccessible to foreign nationals 

(Groupe d'Étude et de Lutte contre les Discriminations (GELD), ‘Une forme méconnue de discrimination et 
les emplois fermés aux étrangers: secteur privé, entreprises publiques, fonctions publiques’, Note No. 1 
March 2000.), available at: http://www.gisti.org/doc/presse/2000/ged/index.html (accessed 6 September 
2016).  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
National  law  resulting  from  the  transposition  of  Directives  2000/43/EC  and  2000/78/EC 
by the Law of 16 November 2001 and the Law of 27 May 2008 applies to both the private 
and  public  sectors,  including  public  bodies,  except  in  areas  for  which  transposition  has 
not taken place and for which jurisprudential interpretation regarding the direct effect of 
the directives must be invoked, i.e. magistrates, parliamentary administrators and state 
contractual  agents  outside  the  scope  of  the  Law  of  1984  are  excluded  by  application  of 
Article 3 of Law No. 83-634 on civil servants. 

Physical and legal persons, whether public or private, are bound to uphold the prohibition 
of  discrimination  in  criminal  law  (Articles  121-2  PC  for  legal  persons  and  432-7  PC  for 
public authorities), private law and public law. In addition, Article 5 of Law No. 2008-496 
expressly provides that the law is applicable to all public and private persons. 

3.2  Material scope 

3.2.1  Employment, self-employment and occupation  

In  France,  national  legislation  does  not  apply  to  all  sectors  of  private  and  public 
employment,  self-employment  and  occupation, 
including  contract  work,  self-
employment, military service and holding statutory office, for the five grounds.  

Further  to  the  adoption  of  Law  No.  2008-496,  all  employees,  civil  servants  and  state 
contracting  agents  are  protected  against  discrimination  with  respect  to  all  the  grounds 
covered  by  Article  19  TFEU.  The  extent  of  the  protection  and  the  legal  regimes  vary 
according  to  whether  the  situation  is  covered  by  the  Penal  Code,  the  Labour  Code  or 
administrative law and according to the ground of discrimination.  

However,  the  Law  No.  83-634  of  13  July  1983  on  the  rights  and  obligations  of  civil 
servants  states  in  Article  3  that,  in  conformity  with  Article  64  of  the  Constitution  of 
1958,  it  does  not  cover  the  status  of  magistrates  who  are  not  considered  as  civil 
servants. Ordinance No. 58-1270 of 22 December 1958 regulates the rules applicable to 
both  prosecution  and  state  magistrates  and  judges  on  the  bench.141  Public  servants 
working  in  parliament  are  also  not  subject  to  Law  No.  83-634,  since  Article  3  provides 
that  they  are  governed  by  separate  parliamentary  rules.  These  texts  have  not  been 
amended to implement Directives 2000/78/EC and 2000/43/EC and do not foresee any 
protection against discrimination on any grounds.  

In its decision of 30 October 2009, the  Conseil d’Etat decided that, given the  failure  of 
the  Government  to  transpose  Directive  2000/78/EC,  it  could  be  invoked  directly  by 
magistrates before administrative courts.142  

Article  L1132-1  LC  covers,  on  all  grounds,  recruitment  practices,  remuneration, 
appointment,  promotion,  transfer,  qualification,  classification,  renewal  of  contract  and 
redeployment and the end of the employment relationship, whether by dismissal, expiry 
of contract or retirement. In addition, the Labour Code forbids discriminatory provisions 
(L1121-1 LC) in in-house regulations (L1321-3 LC) and collective bargaining agreements 
(L2251-1 LC).  

The  prohibition  of  discrimination  applies  to  salaried  workers  as  well  as  temporary 
employees and vocational apprenticeships.  

141  France, Ordinance No. 58-1270 of 22 December 1958 relating to the status of magistrates (Ordonnance No. 
58-1270 du 22 décembre 1958 portant loi organique relative au statut de la magistrature), available at: 
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000339259 (accessed6 September 2016). 

142  Conseil D’Etat, No. 298348, 30 October 2009. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
With respect to the status of the armed forces, France has availed itself of the exception 
contained in Article 3 (4) of Directive 2000/78/EC allowing derogation concerning criteria 
based on age and disability. 

Article 2 of Law No. 2008-496 extends the same uniform protection to independent and 
non-salaried workers and to both the private and public sectors. 

In the public sector, Article 6 quinquies of Law No. 83-634 of 13 July 1983, as modified 
by the Law No. 2008-496, forbids distinctions between civil servants on grounds of their 
political,  philosophical  or  religious  opinions,  union  activities,  sex,  health,  disability, 
affiliation, whether real or supposed, to an ethnic origin, a nation, a  race or a particular 
religion.  

The  penal  regime  (as  established  by  Articles  225-1  and  225-2  PC  and  Article  4  of  Law 
No. 2008-496) does not provide for a shift in the burden of proof and covers only direct 
discrimination.  It  provides  protection  against  discrimination  in  recruitment,  vocational 
apprenticeships  and  training,  as  well  as  sanctions  and  dismissal.  It  offers  the  only 
possible  penal  action  in  the  case  of  denial  of  a  right  granted  by  law  and  hindrance  of 
economic activity.  

Some  professions  are  subject  to  a  condition  of  nationality.  The  GELD  (see  above)  in 
March  2000  and  then  the  HALDE  in  its  deliberations  of  2008  and  2009  (deliberations 
2008-189 and 2009-139)143 have drawn the  attention of  the Government  to these legal 
discriminations, requesting that an assessment be made of the legality of the conditions 
of  nationality  in  access  to  certain  professions,  which  should  be  limited  to  functions  that 
entail  the  exercise  of  prerogatives  of  public  authority  (prérogatives  de  puissance 
publique). 

France  was  condemned  by  the  CJEU  in  a  decision  of  25  May  2011  relating  to  the 
conditions of access to the profession of notary for EU citizens in application of Article 49 
TFEU. It was decided that, even if notarial activities pursued objectives of public interest, 
they  did  not  correspond  to  activities  relating  to  the  exercise  of  public  authority  in  the 
sense  of  the  EU  Treaty.  Therefore  the  Court  decided  that  the  condition  of  nationality 
attached  to  access  to  the  profession  of  notary  is  discrimination  on  the  ground  of 
nationality  prohibited  by  Community  law.144  Decree  No.  2011-1309  of  17  October  2011 
relating  to  the  conditions  of  access  to  the  profession  of  notary  put  an  end  to  this 
condition of nationality. 

3.2.2  Conditions  for  access  to  employment,  to  self-employment  or  to 
occupation,  including  selection  criteria,  recruitment  conditions  and 
promotion,  whatever  the  branch  of  activity  and  at  all  levels  of  the 
professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a))  

In  France  national  legislation  includes  conditions  for  access  to  employment,  self-
employment  or  occupation,  including  selection  criteria,  recruitment  conditions  and 
promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy, 
for the five grounds, in both the private and public sectors, as described in the directives. 

Access to employment is specifically covered with respect to all the grounds contained in 
Article 19 paragraph 1 TFEU and other grounds listed in Section 2.1 by Article 225-2 PC, 
Article  L1132-1  LC  and  Article  6  of  Law  No.  83-634  of  July  13  1983  on  the  rights  and 
obligations  of  civil  servants.  Access  to  self-employment  or  occupation  is  covered  by 
Article 2 of Law No. 2008-496 with respect to all the Article 19 (1) TFEU grounds.  

143  Available at:http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr. 
144  CJEU, No. C50/08, European Commission v French Republic, 24 May 2011. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In addition, the Penal Code (Article 225-2) specifically targets denial of a  right granted 
by law and of hindrance of economic activity.  

However,  as  discussed  above  (Section  3.1.1),  the  law  imposes  conditions  in  access  to 
certain  rights,  such  as  the  right  to  work,  restricting  them  to  people  with  the  status  of 
legal  foreign  resident  and  creates  some  legal  discrimination  in  access  to  specific 
professions  and  jobs  (about  7  000  named  jobs),  subjecting  them  to  conditions  of 
citizenship,  whether  French  or  of  the  European  Union  (see  GELD,  Publication  No.  1.  on 
legal discrimination and employment inaccessible to foreign nationals).  

In  France  access  to  the  civil  service  is  conditional  on  passing  a  competitive  entry 
examination. Article 19 of Law No. 2005-102  on equal opportunities and  the integration 
of disabled persons establishes an express obligation to adapt the examination processes 
to the needs of disabled students.  

The  Government  adopted  several  decrees  required  to  implement  Law  No.  2005-102  on 
equal opportunities and  the integration of disabled persons and, on 21 December 2005, 
adopted  Decree  No.  2005-1617145  on  accommodation  for  disabled  candidates  in 
competitive examinations for entry into civil service. 

Furthermore,  in  France  access  to  careers  in  civil  service  and  to  competitive  entry 
examinations were subject to limitations based on maximum age requirements, most of 
which have been repealed, but are in all cases not applicable to disabled candidates.  

3.2.3  Employment  and  working  conditions,  including  pay  and  dismissals 

(Article 3(1)(c)) 

In  France,  national  legislation  covers  working  conditions,  including  pay  and  dismissals, 
for all five grounds and for both private and public employment. 

Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals, are covered by Article 
L1132-1 LC, Article 6 quinquies of Law No. 83-634 of 13 July 1983 and Article 2 paras. 1 
and 2 of Law No. 2008-496. However, working conditions are not covered by Article 225-
2 of the Penal Code. 

The  CJEU  decided  that  Directive  2003/88  applied  to  persons  attending  work  based 
occupational centres as regards its provisions relating to working time, regardless of their 
worker’s  status  in  national  law.  The  court  did  not  discuss  whether  not  recognising 
persons  attending  such  occupational  centres  as  workers  was  discriminatory.  However, 
this decision reaches beyond European labour law since it in fact extends the purview of 
the  protection  against  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  disability  in  employment  to 
disabled people performing an activity in an occupational centre for disabled  people and 
therefore extends the scope of the application of the rule of equal treatment. Therefore, 
in  the  future,  maintaining  their  present  status  and  working  conditions  will  be  in  many 
respects held to be discriminatory on the ground of disability.146 

145  France, Decree No. 2005-1617 of 21 December 2005 on the accommodation of examinations in higher 

education for disabled students (Décret n°2005-1617 du 21 décembre 2005 relatif aux aménagements des 
examens et concours de l'enseignement scolaire et de l'enseignement supérieur pour les candidats 
présentant un handicap), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000456607 (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

146  CJEU, No C-316/13, 26 March 2015, available at: 

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62013CJ0316&lang1=fr&type=TXT&ancre (accessed6 
September 2016). 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.3.1  Occupational pensions constituting part of pay 

The  Administrative  Supreme  Court,  applying  the  principles  set  out  by  the  CJEU  in  the 
Griesmar  case,147  considers  that  occupational  pensions  form  part  of  remuneration  and 
constitute  a  debt  subject  to  Article  14  and  Protocol  11  of  the  European  Convention  of 
Human  Rights  (ECHR)  guaranteeing  protection  of  property  rights,  and  that  non-
occupational pensions constitute social security protected as such by the same provisions 
of the ECHR.148  

The Court of Cassation has further interpreted Article 3221-2 of the Labour Code, to set a 
general  principle  of  equality  of  remuneration,149  and  the  Administrative  Supreme  Court 
has decided that it applies to professional pension rights.150 

Partners  in  a  PACS151  cannot  benefit  from  widow(er)s’  pensions,  the  transfer  of  pension 
rights, rights accessible to spouses in  relation to employment benefits or parental rights 
after the death of the spouse holding the parental rights. 

Since the adoption of  Law  No. 2013-404  of 17 May 2013,152 marriage is open to  same-
sex couples, putting an end to indirect discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, 
based on the denial of  access  to widow(er)s’ pensions for  PACS partners  for the  future. 
However,  this  legislation  has  not  put  an  end  to  PACS  and  persons,  whether  same  sex 
partners or heterosexual, can remain under the PACS regime or decide to marry.  

3.2.4  Access  to  all  types  and  to  all  levels  of  vocational  guidance,  vocational 
training,  advanced  vocational  training  and  retraining,  including  practical 
work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) 

In  France  national  legislation  applies  to  vocational  training  outside  the  employment 
relationship, such as that provided by technical schools or universities, or  such as adult 
lifelong learning courses.  

Vocational  training  and  guidance  are  covered  by  Articles  225-2  PC,  L1132-1  LC  and 
Article  6  quinquies  of  Law  No.  83-634  of  13  July  1983,  as  modified  by  the  Law  of  16 
November 2001, with respect to all  the Article 19  paragraph 1 TFEU  grounds and  other 
grounds  listed  in  Section  2.1.  In  addition,  Law  No.  2008-496  Article  2  completes  the 
implementation of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC by creating a general principle 
prohibiting  direct  and  indirect  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  ‘race’  and  ethnic  origin 
(Article  2,  paragraph  1)  and  protection  against  direct  and  indirect  discrimination  for 
independent  and  non-salaried  workers  on  all  the  Article  19,  paragraph  1  TFEU  grounds 
(Article 2, paragraph 2).  

147  CJEU, No, C-366/99, 21 November 2001. 
148  Conseil d’Etat, Nos. 212179 and 212211, 18 December 2002; CE 30 November 2001 DIOP, nos. 212179 

and 212211.available at : 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriAdmin.do?idTexte=CETATEXT000008029234 (accessed6 
September 2016). 

149  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 29 October 1996, Delzongle v Ponsolle, Dr.ouv. 1997, 149 comment 

Pascal Moussy. 

150  Conseil d’Etat, No. 291595, 13 December 2006, (9ème et 10ème sous-sections réunies). 
151  The Civil Solidarity Pact (Pacte civil de solidarité, PACS) was created to recognise life partnership before 

same-sex marriage was legalised in France. 

152  France, Law No. 2013-404 of 17 May 2013 opening marriage to same-sex couples (Loi No. 2013-404 du 17 

mai 2013 ouvrant le mariage aux couples de personnes de même sexe), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000027414540&dateTexte&categorieLien=
id (accessed6 September 2016). 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.5  Membership  of,  and  involvement  in,  an  organisation  of  workers  or 
employers,  or  any  organisation  whose  members  carry  on  a  particular 
profession,  including  the  benefits  provided  for  by  such  organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) 

In  France  national  legislation  includes  membership  of  and  involvement  in  workers’  or 
employers’ organisations as formulated in the directives for all five grounds and for both 
private and public employment. 

Law  No.  2008-496  Article  6,  Article  2141-1  LC  states  that  ‘Any  salaried  employee  can 
freely  become  a  member  of  the  union  of  his  or  her  choice  and  cannot  be  excluded  on 
grounds  prohibited  by  Article  1133-1’  (that  is,  all  the  Article  19,  paragraph  1  TFEU 
grounds and others) and Article 2131-5 LC provides that any member who holds French 
or foreign citizenship can participate in union activities and management. Article 2314-16 
LC  provides  that  all  salaried  employees  are  eligible  to  become  an  employees’ 
representative  if  they  are  18  years  of  age  and  have  been  an  employee  of  the 
organisation for at least one year.  

With respect to the election of labour court judges, lists presented by a political party or 
an  organisation  favouring  discrimination  are  illegal  (L1441-23  LC).  However,  to  be 
eligible, the candidate must have French citizenship.  

Article 6, paragraph 2 and Article 8, paragraph 1 of Law No. 83-634 of July 13 1983, as 
modified  by  the  Law  of  16  November  2001,  provides  that  in  the  public  sector  ‘Union 
rights  are  guaranteed  to  civil  servants.  Those  concerned  can  freely  create  unions, 
become members and be elected as representatives’.  

Article 2, paragraph 2 of Law No. 2008-496 creates a specific protection of affiliation and 
involvement in a professional or trade organisation for all grounds protected by Directive 
2000/78/EC as well as real or assumed ethnic origin and race.  

Finally,  trade  unions,  employers’  associations  and  all  other  organisations  must  abide  by 
Article  225-2  of  the  Penal  Code  prohibiting  discrimination  in  access  to  goods  and 
services,  including  services  offered  by  the  union  to  its  members.  The  list  of  prohibited 
grounds  listed  in  Article  225-1  PC  includes  health,  age,  disability,  sexual  orientation, 
racial and ethnic origin, convictions, religion, political opinions and sex.  

3.2.6  Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 3(1)(e) 

Directive 2000/43) 

In  France  national  legislation  includes  social  protection,  including  social  security  and 
healthcare, as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. 

Law No. 2008-496 completes the implementation of Directive 2000/43/EC by integrating, 
in Article 2, a prohibition of all types of discrimination defined in Article 1 of the law, on 
the basis of affiliation, whether real or supposed, to an ethnic origin, nation or race, and 
making  provision  for  the  shift  in  the  burden  of  proof,  as  regards  social  protection, 
including social security and healthcare.  

Articles 11 to 18 of Law n 2005-102 of 11 February 2005 on equal opportunities and the 
integration  of  disabled  persons  provide  for  a  right  to  social  protection,  including  social 
security and healthcare. 

For the other grounds of discrimination, the general principles of public law are based on 
a general principle of equality in the public service (see Section 0.1 and Section 1, Article 
1,  of  the  Constitution  of  1958,  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution  of  1946  and  the 
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789) and a universal principle of 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
non-discrimination  in  access  to  healthcare  which  is  not  restricted  to  any  prohibited 
ground  of  discrimination  (Article  1110-3  SWC).  These  principles  also  apply  to  civil 
servants.  In  addition,  all  residents  in  France  benefit  from  the  same  social  rights, 
regardless of nationality.  

3.2.6.1  Article 3.3 exception (Directive 2000/78) 

National  law  does  not  rely  on  the  exception  in  Article  3.3  of  the  Employment  Equality 
Directive in relation to religion or belief, age, disability and sexual orientation, since the 
rules on access to social security and healthcare are universal. 

3.2.7  Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) 

In  France  national  legislation  includes  social  advantages  as  formulated  in  the  Racial 
Equality Directive. 

Article 2 of Law No. 2008-496 completes the implementation of Directive 2000/43/EC by 
integrating a prohibition of  all types of discrimination defined  in Article 1  of the law,  on 
the basis of affiliation, whether real or supposed to an ethnic origin, nation or race, and 
making provision for the shift in the burden of proof, as regards social advantages.  

For  the  other  grounds  of  discrimination,  benefits  provided  by  either  public  or  private 
actors  to  individuals  on  the  basis  of  their  employment  which  form  part  of  remuneration 
are covered by the prohibitions of discrimination relating to equal pay and are covered by 
Law No. 2008-496. 

For non-contributory benefits, the general principles of public law are based on a general 
principle  of  equality  in  the  public  service  (see  Article  1  of  the  Constitution  of  1958,  the 
preamble of the Constitution of 1946 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the 
Citizen  of  1789).  These  principles  also  apply  to  civil  servants.  In  addition,  all  residents 
benefit  from  the  same  social  rights  regardless  of  nationality.  For  instance,  the  cost  of 
access  to  municipal  services  and  social  support  can  only  be  based  on  socio-economic 
considerations. 

Otherwise,  public  servants  who  apply  a  criterion  based  on  a  prohibited  ground  of 
discrimination,  such  as  religion,  have  been  held  to  violate  Articles  225-1  and  432-7  PC 
and have been sanctioned accordingly by the courts.  

The PACS, which grants similar rights to those of married couples in many areas (access 
to social security, rights of residence etc.) and was the only form of union open to same-
sex couples until Law n 2013-404 of 17 May2013 opening marriage to same-sex couples, 
does  not  provide  the  ‘same  rights’  as  marriage  and  therefore  maintained  some  form  of 
legal indirect discrimination against same-sex couples in relation to the rights denied due 
to the fact that marriage was not open to them before May 2013.153  

Partners in a PACS cannot benefit from widow(er)s’ pensions, transfer of pension rights, 
rights  accessible  to  spouses  in  relation  to  employment  benefits  or  parental  rights  after 
the death of the spouse holding the parental rights. In a decision of 12 December 2013, 
the CJEU decided, further to a referral from the Court of Cassation in the case of Hay v. 
Crédit  Agricole,154  that,  if  marriage  is  not  accessible  to  same-sex  partners,  a  salaried 
employee  who  enters  into  a  contractual  union  with  a  same-sex  partner,  must  benefit 
from  the  same  advantages  as  those  conferred  upon  his  or  her  colleagues  when  they 

153  Constitutional Council, No. 2010-92 QPC, 28 January 2011. 
154  CJEU, C-267/12, Frédéric Hay Vs. Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres, 12 

December 2013. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
marry.  The  refusal  to  confer  such  benefits  on  an  employee  constitutes  direct 
discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Prior to the law authorising marriage 
between  same-sex  couples,  the  French  Government  always  refused  to  amend  Articles 
3142-1 ff. of the  Labour Code, which denies family holidays  for same-sex partners.  The 
issue remains in relation to rights are still pending and which could be claimed by people 
in life partnerships during the period prior to Law no 2013-404 of 17 May 2013 opening 
marriage to same-sex couples. 

In France, the lack of definition of social advantages does not create problems. 

3.2.8  Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) 

In  France  national  legislation  includes  education  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive. 

National  education  is  considered  as  a  public  service  accessible  to  all  and  subject  to 
respect for the general principle of equality applicable to the public service (Article L111-
1 of the Code of Education).  

As explained in Section 1, it is a general principle of  administrative law of constitutional 
value  that  origin  cannot  be  taken  into  consideration,  whether  by  legal  texts  or  in 
management practices. Not only is the criteria of nationality not taken into account, but 
until  university,  if  a  child’s  parents  are  in  France  illegally,  this  cannot  be  taken  into 
account  to  deny  the  child  access  to  school  or  preschool.  The  Grenoble  court  of  appeal 
convicted a mayor for refusing to register children of North African origin  at schools and 
school cafeterias.155 

Legal  segregation  on  ethnic  grounds  is  prohibited  at  all  levels  of  the  legal  order  and 
ethnic  origin  cannot  form  the  basis  of  educational  policy  in  France  (see  Section  1).  The 
allocation  of  a  state  school  place  is  legally  determined  by  the  child’s  address. 
Geographical zoning has no impact on the educational programme, which is national and 
identical  throughout  the  country,  except  that  some  areas  have  an  increased  budget  if 
they are dealing with socially underprivileged children.  

No  official  monitoring  takes  origin  into  account.  However,  due  to  geographical  zoning 
there  is  a  concentration  of  migrant  children  and  children  of  foreign  origin  in  specific 
schools, where overall educational achievements are lower than in other schools.  

Law No. 2008-496 completes the implementation of Directive 2000/43/EC by creating a 
general  principle  prohibiting  direct  and  indirect  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  ‘race’  and 
ethnic  origin,  and  provides  for  action  before  judicial  and  administrative  courts  in  the 
event  of  discrimination in  education  and  a  shift  in the  burden  of  proof.  Any  evidence  of 
the practice of segregation or managers taking origin into account, directly or indirectly, 
would give rise to a right to take action before the administrative courts and the criminal 
courts.  

However, claims of discrimination in education involving the private sector, whether it be 
a  private  school  or  discrimination  perpetrated  by  a  private  party  in  the  context  of  an 
internship,  are  covered  by  the  general  principles  of  administrative  law  and  therefore 
benefit  from  no  specific  routes  of  legal  action  other  than  a  general  private  law  civil 
liability  claim  on  the  basis  of  Article  1  of  the  Law  of  27  May  2008  and  a  criminal  claim 
based on Article 225-2 of the Penal Code.  

155  Grenoble Court of Appeal, 13 November 1991. TA Bordeaux, 14 June 1988, El Rhazouari, Recueil Lebon, p. 

518. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Religion 

The  same  principle  of  equality  has  been  used  to  adjudicate  on  the  applicability  of  the 
obligation to attend school to children whose religion enjoins worship on a day other than 
Sunday.  In  this  case,  the  Conseil  d’Etat  gave  priority  to  the  protection  of  freedom  of 
worship,  arguing  that  compulsory  school  attendance  is  not  intended  to,  and  may  not 
lawfully,  deny  to  pupils  who  request  it,  such  individual  leave  of  absence  as  may  be 
necessary  for  worship  or  celebration  of  a  religious  festival,  at  least  in  so  far  as  their 
absence  is  compatible  with  performance  of  the  tasks  entailed  by  their  studies  and  with 
the maintenance of good order (ordre public) in the school.156  

The Law on the application of the principle of secularism in state schools was adopted on 
15  March  2004  and  published  on  17  March  2004  (Law  of  15  March  2004  No.  2004-
228).157  It  forbids  ‘…in  state  primary,  secondary  and  high  schools,  the  wearing  of 
symbols  or  clothing  by  which  students  manifest  their  religious  affiliation’  (author’s 
translation). Discreet religious symbols remain authorised. The law further instructs each 
school  to  adopt  in-house  regulations  for  the  school  year  2004-2005  in  order  to  put  in 
place  a  procedure  of  enforcement  by  disciplinary  decision  preceded  by  a  mediation  and 
dialogue process with the student.  

The  administrative  instruction  of  18  May  2004  on  the  conditions  of  enforcement  of  the 
above-mentioned  law  was  published  on  25  May  2004  (Ministerial  instruction  NO.2004-
084 of 18 May 2004).158 It states that ‘the prohibited symbols and clothing are those by 
which  people  are  immediately  identified  with  their  religious  beliefs,  such  as  the  Muslim 
headscarf, by which ever word it may be designated, the kippah or a cross of manifestly 
excessive  dimension’  (author’s  translation).  However,  it  emphasises  the  necessity  of 
organising  a  true  dialogue  between  the  student,  their  parents  or  legal  representatives 
and  the  head  teacher  of  the  school,  in  order  to  limit  disciplinary  sanctions  to  cases  of 
deliberate refusal by the student to abide by the law.  

In  2006,  unresolved  cases  were  limited  to  boys  from  the  Sikh  community  and  a  few 
cases  related  to  the  Muslim  headscarf.  Their  legal  action  before  administrative  courts 
and, ultimately the ECtHR have been dismissed.159  

Since  these  decisions,  which  maintain  the  interpretation  of  the  French  authorities,  most 
issues  appear  to  be  resolved,  since  those  students  who  will  not  submit  to  clothing 
requirements do not pursue their request and register with the  national home schooling 
system, known as CNED (Centre national d’enseignement à distance). There has been no 
official  report  on  this  matter  since  2005.  However,  while  commentators  note  that  the 
number of cases of children who end up pursuing their studies through home schooling is 
stable  (around  200  new  cases  per  year),  more  than  10  Muslim  private  schools  have 
opened since 2005. 

In  the  meantime,  on  1  November  2012,  the  UN  Human  Rights  Committee  contradicted 
the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  in  relation  to  the  complaint  filed  by  Mr  Singh 
alleging  that  expulsion  from  school  pursuant  to  the  law  of  15  March  2004  for  wearing 
Sikh  religious  symbols  was  a  violation  of  his  right  to  freedom  of  religion  pursuant  to 

156  Conseil d’Etat, Consistoire central des israélites de France, Mr Koen,  No. 157653, 14 April 1995, available 
at : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriAdmin.do?idTexte=CETATEXT000007855903 (accessed 6 
September 2016). 

157  France, Law No. 2004-228 of 15 March 2004 on the principle of secularism in state schools (Loi No. 2004-

228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité), available at: 
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000417977 (accessed6 September 2016). 

158  Available at: http://www.education.gouv.fr/bo/2004/21/MENG0401138C.htm (accessed 6 September 

2016). 

159  Conseil d’Etat, No. 285394, 05 December 2007; ECtHR, No. 25463.08, 30 June 2009. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Articles  2,  17,  18  and  26  of  the  International  Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights.160 
The  Committee  decided  that  it  must  evaluate  whether  this  restriction  of  freedom  of 
religion  complies  with  the  requirements  of  being  necessary  and  proportionate  in 
accordance with Article 18, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. To be legitimate, the exercise 
of freedom of religion must be detrimental to a stated aim protecting public safety, order, 
health,  morals  or  fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  of  others.  Even  if  secularism  meets 
these requirements, given the importance of the male religious outfit in the Sikh religion, 
which  forms  part  of  the  identity  of  a  person,  and  the  scope  of  the  penalty  on  the  pupil 
expelled from school, the  Committee considered that the  state had not  established that 
wearing  such  a  garment  would  present  a  threat  to  public  order  or  to  the  fundamental 
rights  and  freedoms  of  others  and  that  the  sanction  was  proportionate.  The  Committee 
ordered the state to correct the individual situation and prevent further violations of the 
Covenant by the French education system. 

In  addition,  the  Law  of  31  December  1959  recognises  religious  private  schools  and 
provides  for  financial  support  from  the  state  for  such  schools  which  follow  the  national 
education programme.161 

In  the  meantime,  some  local  education  authorities  have  held  that  parents  wearing 
religious symbols could not accompany their children’s classes for school activities.  

The  Defender  of  Rights  requested  an  opinion  from  the  Conseil  d’Etat  regarding  the 
conditions  of  application  of  the  rule  of  neutrality  for  public  servants  in  relation  to 
voluntary  participants  in  public  service.  The  Conseil  d’Etat  indicated  that  it  does  not 
impose  religious  neutrality  on  mothers  accompanying  their  children  to  out-of-school 
activities,  but  it  stated  that  the  competent  authority,  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  can 
recommend  that  they  abstain  from  manifesting  their  religion  and  beliefs,  if  maintaining 
peace  in  a  given  situation  or  environment  requires  it.162  The  Minister  of  Education  has 
since declared that she would comply with this opinion. 

In 2008 and 2009, the HALDE received a number of claims from women who were denied 
access to adult education delivered by the  state  school system on the ground that they 
wore  a  Muslim headscarf.  In  a  case  brought  before  the  Administrative  Court  of  Paris,163 
an  injunction  ordering  the  immediate  re-integration  of  the  claimant  into  the  school  was 
granted.  The  HALDE  presented  observations.  The  court  decided  that  the  ground  of  her 
exclusion  was  prima  facie  null  and  void,  considering  that  the  prohibition  of  religious 
symbols in state schools did not apply to adult education programmes. The decision was 
confirmed on its merits by the Paris Administrative Appeals Court.164 

In addition, in a criminal case alleging discrimination on the ground of religion further to 
the  exclusion  of  a  student  from  an  adult  higher  education  apprenticeship  programme 
because she was wearing a Muslim headscarf, which was deemed contrary to the internal 
regulations  of  the  school,165  on  8  June  2010  the  Paris  Court  of  Appeal,  in  application  of 
Article 225-2 of the Penal Code, condemned the education centre to a fine of EUR 3 275, 

160  UN Human Rights Committee, 106th session, no 1852/2008, 4th December 2012, Bikramjit vs. France, 
available at: http://unitedsikhs/org/rtt/doc/BikramjitSinghDecision/pdf (accessed 6 September 2016). 
161  France, Law No. 59-1557 of 31 December 1959 governing relations between the State and private schools 
(Loi n° 59-1557 du 31 décembre 1959 sur les rapports entre l'Etat et les établissements d'enseignement 
privés) available at: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000693420 
(accessed 6 September 2016). 

162  Study conducted and adopted at the request of the Defender of Rights by the Plenary Assembly of the 

Conseil d’Etat on 23 December 2013, available at: 
http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/fr/publications/etudes/application-du-principe-de-neutralite-religieuse-
dans-les-services-publics-etude (accessed 6 September 2016). 

163  Paris Administrative Court, Saïd v. Greta, No. 0905233.9, 27 April 2009. 
164  Paris Administrative Appeals Court, No. 0905232, 5 November 2011. 
165  Paris Court of Appeal, Ms Boutaina Benkirane v. Centre universitaire de formation par l'apprentissage Sup 

2000, No. 08.08286, 8 June 2010. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
its Director to a fine of EUR 1 250, and both were required to pay damages amounting to 
EUR 10 500. 

a) 

Pupils with disabilities 

In  France  the  general  approach  to  education  for  pupils  with  disabilities  does  cause 
problems  in  relation  to  the  availability  of  resources  to  implement  the  state  policy  of 
integration and provide specialised support to those who need it. 

Law  No.  2005-102  of  11  February  2005  on  equal  opportunities  and  the  integration  of 
disabled persons completely reforms the assistance and education of disabled children.166 
It  creates  an  express  obligation  on  the  state  to  ensure  the  education  of  all  disabled 
children.  The  right  to  education  and  to  reasonable  accommodation  within  education  of 
disabled  children  is  affirmed  in  Articles  19  to  22  of  the  Law  on  Disability.  Article  11 
affirms  a  right  of  access  to  local  mainstream  schools  and  the  right  to  an  individual 
educational programme. 

Title  IV  of  the  Law  on  Disability,  entitled  ‘Accessibility’,  covers  access  to  education  in 
Chapter  I.  It  creates  a  commission  to  assess  children  and  suggest  to  their  parents  a 
personalised  programme  of  education  that  will  also  be  taken  into  consideration  when 
subsequently determining the rights of the child under the general compensation scheme 
for all disabled people established by the law and conditions of access to special support.  

Article  19  III  creates  an  obligation  to  provide  education  to  each  child  at  every  level  of 
education and a right to access to mainstream school is conferred by Article L112-1 of the 
Code  of  Education.  The  adoption  of  the  decrees  necessary  to  implement  institutional 
reforms pursuant to the adoption of the Law on Disability was completed in 2006. Decree 
No.  2005-1589  of  19  December  2005  was  adopted  to  enforce  the  administrative 
simplification of the management of the various rights of disabled people.167  

Since  2005,  amongst  other  tasks,  the  Commission  for  the  Rights  and  Autonomy  of 
Disabled  Persons  must  determine  whether  children,  in  consideration  of  the  ‘personal  life 
project’ established by the Commission, should be placed in the mainstream educational 
system, in some cases with special support, in specialised classes (CLIS) or in specialised 
educational institutions.168 The Regional Administration of National Education (Académie) 
is part of this commission, together with everyone involved in the support and education 
of the  child. The remedies available to parents if  they are  opposed to the conclusions of 
the orientation process are dealt with in Section 6.1 of this report.  

Parents  cannot  demand  a  schooling  orientation  which  differs  from  that  proposed  by  the 
Commission  for  the  Rights  and  Autonomy  of  Disabled  Persons.  If  access  to  the  local 

166  Regarding autism and access to facilities, education and support, a national plan was initiated in 2004 to 

provide resources at the regional level, followed by a plan for 2005/2006 to provide resources at the local 
level. Available at: http://www/autismes/fr/fr/textes-rapports/html (accessed 6 September 2016). 

167  France, Decree No. 2006-583 of 23 May 2006 on the regulatory provisions of Book II of the Code of 
Education J.O. No. 120, 24 May 2006 (Décret n° 2006-583 du 23 mai 2006 relatif aux dispositions 
réglementaires du livre III du code de l'éducation), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000607176 (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

168  France, Decree No. 2005-1587 of 19 December 2005 on the Departmental House [Authority] for the 

Disabled, J.O. no 295, 20 December 2005 (Décret No. 2005-1587 du 19 décembre 2005 relatif à la maison 
départementale des personnes handicapées et modifiant le code de l'action Sociale et des familles), 
available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000454078&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id (accessed 6 September 2016)). France, Decree No. 2005-1752 of 20 December 2005 on schooling for 
disabled students J.O. no 304, 31 December 2005, (Décret n°2005-1752 du 30 décembre 2005 relatif au 
parcours de formation des élèves présentant un handicap), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000456016 (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
mainstream school is not possible because of the physical condition of the premises, the 
extra  cost  of  transport  to  another  school  is  met  by  the  municipal  authorities  (Article 
L112-1, paragraph 8, of the Code of Education).  

Article 75 of the Law on Disability introduces Article L 312-9-1 to the Code of Education 
in order to officially recognise French sign language for people with impaired hearing.  

The  Law  No.  2005-102  on  equal  opportunities  and  the  integration  of  disabled  persons 
further creates (through Article L112-4 of the Code of Education) an express obligation to 
adapt examination processes to the benefit of children with disabilities.  

The  Ministry  of  Education  faces  significant  difficulties  in  financing  adequate  support  for 
the  satisfactory  integration  of  disabled  children  into  mainstream  schools.  Since  the  first 
decision  of  the  European  Committee  of  Social  Rights  (ECSR)  in  2002,  the  French 
Government  has  taken  action  to  address  the  situation  of  autistic  children  and  young 
people.  In  its  2014  decision  in  the  case  of  European  Action  of  Persons  with  Disabilities 
(Action  européenne  des  handicapés,  AEH)  v.  France,  however,  the  ECSR  decided  that 
these actions were insufficient, since only 14 000 autistic children would be taken care of 
and an estimate of more than 40 000 would remain without proper care.169 

A  report  to  the  Minister  of  Social  Affairs  of  22  June  2014  estimates  the  number  of 
disabled children without an adequate solution to the lack of available facilities as being 
around 20 000.170 

In September 2005, the Administrative Court of Lyon decided that the failure of the state 
to  provide  access  to  school  to  a  disabled  child  because  of  insufficient  available  adapted 
facilities  makes  the  state  liable  for  damages,  regardless  of  whether  or  not  it  is  at  fault, 
the  additional  burden  on  the  family  being  unreasonable.171  The  Administrative  Supreme 
Court  decided  that  the  state  bears  the  obligation  that  rests  upon  all  authorities  of  the 
state to provide the necessary resources.172 

b) 

Trends and patterns regarding Roma pupils 

In  France  no  specific  patterns  regarding  Roma  pupils  exist  in  education,  such  as 
segregation. 

The  education  system  provides  for  special  classes  to  integrate  newly  arrived  foreign 
migrant children and  Traveller children173 and Law No. 2000-614 of 5 July 2000, on the 
accommodation of Travelling people (a euphemism that covers all travelling populations), 
provides for a duty to accommodate the temporary school attendance of French Traveller 

169  ECSR No. 81/2012, issued 11 September 2013, published 5 February 2014, AEH vs France, available at: 

http://hudoc/esc/coe/int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22No. 
%2081/2012%20%20France%22],%22ESCStateParty%22:[%22FRA%22],%22ESCDcIdentifier%22:[%22r
eschs-2014-2-en%22]} (accessed 6 September 2016). 

170  http://www/Social-sante/gouv/fr/IMG/pdf/Annexes_au_rapport_Zero_sans_solution_.pdf. 
171  Administrative Court of  Lyon, M. & Mme Hebri, No. 0403829, 29 September 2005, AJDA, 2005, 1874. 
172  Conseil d’Etat, Annie Beaufils, No. 31850, 16 May 2011. 
173  Franchi, V. (2002), Raxen 4 European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) French national 
report on Education, available at: http://fra/europa/eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/186-CS-Education-
en/pdf (accessed 6 September 2016); Policy document No. 2002-102 issued on the 25 April 2002; On 
educational integration of newly arrived non-French speaking children see Ministerial instruction no 2012-
141 of 2 October 2012 relating to the school integration of newly arrived non–French speaking children, 
(circulaire no 2012-141 du 2 octobre 2012 relative à la scolarisatin des élèves allophones nouvellement 
arrivés). http://www.education.gouv.fr//pid25535/bulletin_officiel/html?cid_bo=61536 (accessed 6 
September 2016); Ministerial Instruction No. 2012-142 of 2 October 2012 relating to the schooling of 
children from Traveller families and families without residence (Circulaire no 2012-142 du 2 octobre 2012, 
REDE 236611C/ RED-DEGESCO A1-1 relative à la scolarisation de enfants issus de familles itinérantes et de 
voyageurs), available at: http://www.education.gouv.fr/pid25535/bulletin_officiel.html?cid_bo=61529 
(accessed6 September 2016).  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
children  and  Roma  children.174  Again,  some  mayors  fail  to  respect  the  law.  When  they 
are brought before the courts they are sanctioned, but Traveller parents on the road will 
often leave without seeking enforcement. Moreover, as recognised in the ESRC decisions 
of  25  January  2012,  European  Roma  and  Travellers  Forum  v.  France,  and  the  decision 
issued  further  to  the  complaint  of  Médecins  du  Monde  v.  France,  published  21  January 
2013, the ongoing expulsion of Travelling people and foreign Roma populations, resulting 
from  Government  policy  against  the  unauthorised  occupation  of  private  and  public 
property, significantly hinders de facto children’s access to education. 

A  total  of  4  000  children,  a  number  which  has  remained  stable  for  years,  are  not 
registered  in  the  formal  system  and  attend  between  10  and  50  half  days  of  school  in 
mobile school buses in 13 departments.  The Government social affairs authorities stress 
that,  since  the  abolition  of  military  service,  illiteracy  rates  are  dramatically  increasing, 
since this period served as a means to teach every young man to read and write.  

The  CNED  home  schooling  system  registers  annually  750  Traveller  children  at  primary 
school level and 5 000 at secondary level, of whom 1 300 follow traditional education and 
3 700 follow classes destined to combat illiteracy. 

The  National  Parking  Accommodation  Scheme  for  Travellers  aims  to  stabilise  residence 
and  favours  school  attendance  for  children,  as  all  mayors  are  obliged  to  accept 
registration  of  children  in  school  even  for  a  few  days,  followed  by  registration  by  the 
school principal (Articles L131-10 and 131-11 of the Code of Education and 227-17-2 of 
the  Penal  Code).  However,  where  these  schemes  have  been  implemented,  they  tend  to 
generate  concentrations  and  in  some  cities  (Dijon,  Nancy  and  Toulouse)  there  are 
schools with a majority of children from the Travelling community on their rolls.  

Ministerial instruction No. 2012-142 of 2 October 2012 on school integration of Travelling 
children reiterates the duty to integrate  Traveller and Roma children, regardless of their 
nationality,  housing  conditions  and  legal  residency  on  the  French  territory.  This 
instruction was completed by another Ministerial instruction (circulaire No. 2012-143 of 2 
October 2012)175 providing for the generalisation to all rectorates of the CASNAV scheme 
(centres  for  the  promotion  of  school  attendance  by  non-French-speaking  children  who 
have recently arrived in France and Traveller children). In order to facilitate integration, 
children can register for school attendance directly with the CASNAV. 

3.2.9  Access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  which  are  available  to  the 

public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In  France,  national  legislation  includes  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  as 
formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. 

The Penal Code (Article 225-2) covers all Article 19, paragraph 1 TFEU grounds and other 
grounds listed in Section 2.1 and sanctions discrimination in access to goods and services 
in the private and public sectors on all grounds covered by French law. 

On 15 December 2015, the Court of Cassation’s Criminal chamber sentenced EasyJet to a 
fine of EUR 50 000 and the subcontracting operating company was sentenced to a fine of 
EUR 25 000. Both companies were also jointly  ordered to compensate the claimants the 
sum  of  EUR 2 000  each  in  damages,  and  to  give  a  symbolic  EUR  1  to  the  NGO 
Association  des  Paralysés  de  France.  The  Court  of  Cassation  maintained  the  position  of 

174  France, Law No. 2000-614 of 5 July 2000 relating to the accommodation of Travellers (Loi No. 2000-614 du 

5 juillet 2000 relative à l'accueil et à l'habitat des gens du voyage). 
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000583573 (accessed 6 September 2016).  

175  France, Ministerial Instruction No. 2012-143 of 2 October 2012 relating to the organisation of CASNAV 

(circulaire no 2012-143 du 02 octobre 2012 relative à l’organisation des CASNAV), available at: 
http://www.education.gouv.fr/pid25535/bulletin_officiel.html?cid_bo=61527 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

71 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the Court of Appeal of Paris that the decision of EasyJet not to train its personnel and the 
systematic  refusal  of  the  company  to  allow  disabled  people  to  board  a  plane  without 
verifying  their  concrete  capacity  to  travel  alone  constitutes  an  overall  policy  based  on 
disability.  Considering  that  industry  practice  shows  that  other  companies  provide  such 
assistance to disabled people, the airline and the subcontractor executing its instructions 
cannot  use  the  personnel  restrictions  argument  to  justify  these  security  requirements 
and systematically refuse a service to disabled people without committing discrimination. 
In addition, Article 11 of the European regulation provides for an obligation on the part of 
air  transport  carriers  to  train  their  personnel,  which  has  been  transposed  in  French 
regulations  by  Decree  No.  2008-1445  of  22  December  2008,  and  sanctioned  by  an 
administrative  fine.  The  Court  of  Cassation  expressly  held  that  the  European  regulation 
does  not  provide  for  a  safety  requirement  denying  access  to  persons  on  the  ground  of 
disability,  and  EasyJet  did  not  establish  the  existence  of  such  a  safety  standard 
recognised by the national or international authorities.176 

In addition, Article 2 of Law No. 2008-496 at completes the implementation of Directive 
2000/43/EC  by  prohibiting  the  types  of  discrimination  defined  in  Article  1  of  the  law,  in 
access to goods and services, whether private or public, on the basis of ‘race’ and ethnic 
origin. It also covers the  shift in the burden  of proof in administrative and jurisdictional 
legal actions. 

3.2.9.1  Distinction between goods and services available publicly or privately 

In France national law does not distinguish between goods and services available to the 
public  (e.g.  in  shops,  restaurants  or  banks)  and  those  only  available  privately  (e.g. 
limited to members of a private association). 

Article  2  of  Law  No.  2008-496  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  access  to  and  supply  of 
goods and services on the grounds of race, ethnicity and sex, without distinction between 
goods available to the public or privately. 

The  Penal  Code  (Article  225-2)  does  not  distinguish  between  whether  the  goods  or 
services are offered privately or are available to the public. In the public sector, the same 
provision (Article 432-7 PC) punishes any public  servant  who refuses to any person the 
benefit of a right afforded by law or hinders the free exercise of an economic activity. 

However,  the  Perben  Law  No.  2004-204  of  9  March  2004,  adapting  justice  to 
developments  in  criminality  creates  an  aggravated  sanction  in  the  case  of  a 
discriminatory refusal to sell goods or to provide access to public places.177 

3.2.10  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In  France  national  legislation  includes  housing  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive. 

Article  158  of  the  Law  of  17  January  2002  amended  Article  1,  paragraph  2,  of  Law  No. 
89-462  of  6  July  1989  on  relations  between  landlords  and  tenants,  and  forbids 
discrimination  in  access  to  rental  housing,  whether  private  or  public,  on  all  grounds  of 
discrimination prohibited by French law except age, and provides for  civil remedy and  a 

176  Court of Cassation, Criminal chamber, EasyJet vs. Gianmartini et al., No. 13-81586, 15 December 2015, 

available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000031658282&f
astReqId=2131939514&fastPos=2 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

177  France, Law No. 2004-204 of 9 March 2004, adapting justice to developments in criminality (Loi No. 2004-

204 du 9 mars 2004 portant adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000249995&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id (accessed 6 September 2016). 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
shift in the burden of proof. In 2014, Law No. 89-462 on relations between landlords and 
tenants was amended to extend the prohibition to all grounds prohibited by article 225-1 
of  the  Penal  Code,  by  Article  1  of  Law  No.  2014-366  of  24  March  2014  on  promoting 
access to housing and regenerating urban planning (ALUR Law).178 

In France there is a general practice of requesting security for the rent as a condition of 
the lease. Rejection of security offered by an individual’s parents if they are abroad or in 
French  overseas  territory  has  been  largely  used  as  a  means  to  refuse  to  rent  to  non-
nationals.  Article  22-1  of  the  Law  of  6  July  1989  on  relations  between  landlords  and 
tenants also prevents landlords from refusing security on the basis that the  guarantor is 
in a foreign country or is a foreign national. 

Furthermore, the Penal Code’s prohibition of discrimination in Article 225-2 on all covered 
grounds in access to goods and services has been interpreted to cover housing whether 
in relation to rental or sale. 

There  can  be  no  exception  to  the  prohibition  of  racial  discrimination  in  French  law,  and 
the  law  provides  no  exception  to  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  in  housing.  Even 
safety considerations cannot justify discriminating in renting an apartment to a disabled 
person.179  

However,  social  housing  institutions  have  interpreted  the  concept  of  social  mix,  which 
must  govern  allocation,  as  including  a  reference  to  origin  in  order  to  prevent 
concentrations  that  would  lead  to  segregation.  In  a  context  where  the  concentration  of 
people of foreign origin and migrants in social housing is a characteristic of the suburbs, 
the  prohibition  against  any  consideration  of  origin  de  facto  conflicts  with  desegregation 
policies and management practices.  However,  for the first time, SOS  Racism obtained  a 
ruling  against  the  St-Etienne  social  housing  corporation  on  the  basis  of  their  ethnic 
management  of  access  to  housing.180  In  this  case,  the  inter-ministerial  mission  for 
housing reported in July 2005 that the file of each tenant contained an indication of their 
racial/ethnic origin.  

Disability 

Article  L111-7  of  the  Construction  and  Housing  Code  requires  public  and  residential 
buildings  to  be  designed  and  built  to  be  accessible  to  people  with  disabilities.  The 
conditions governing the enforceability of this principle and the regulation of any delay in 
making the necessary adaptations were adopted by decree in 2006. Decree no.2006-555 
of  17  May  2007,  specifies  that  the  obligation  concerns  common  areas,  internal  and 
external, part of the parking space  for  vehicles,  residential lifts, collective premises and 
equipment.181  

While  the  Law  of  11  February  2005  had  imposed  that  all  buildings  receiving  the  public 
conform  to  accessibility  requirements  by  2015,  this  deadline  was  postponed  by  Law  No. 
2014-789 of 10 July 2014  authorising the Government to  adopt legislative measures for 

178  France, Law No. 2014-366 of 24 March 2014 on promoting access to housing and regenerating urban 

planning (Loi No. 2014-366 du 24 mars 2014 pour l'accès au logement et un urbanisme rénové), available 
at: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000028772256&categorieLien=id 
(accessed 6 September 2016). 

179  High Judicial Court of Paris, 17th Chamber, Poncelet v. Lassailly, No. 0402608235, 28 June 2005. 
180  High Judicial Court of St-Etienne, No. 204/09, 3 February 2009. 
181  France, Decree No. 2006-555 of 17 May 2006 on the accessibility of buildings receiving the public and 

residential buildings and modifying the Construction and Housing Code, J.O. No. 115, 18 May 2006 (Décret 
No. 2006-555 du 17 mai 2006 relatif à l'accessibilité des établissements recevant du public, des installations 
ouvertes au public et des bâtiments d'habitation et modifiant le code de la construction et de l'habitation), 
available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000819417&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id (accessed 6 September 2016). 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  implementation  of  the  accessibility  of  public  places.  This  delay  postpones  the 
prosecution and issuing of sanctions provided by the law of 2005 beyond 1 January 2015. 
In exchange, operators of public places (i.e. private and public managers) must formally 
undertake to abide by a specific calendar for each type of works, providing for a timetable 
of  between  three  months  and  nine  years,  according  to  the  type  of  works.  The  calendar 
sets out detailed deadlines for preparing and programming the works, taking the form of 
‘programmed  accessibility  timetables’  (agendas  d’accessibilité  programmée  –  Ad’AP). 
Three  decrees  were  adopted  to  specify  the  conditions  for  the  implementation  of  these 
timetables, one for each type of works. Decree 2014- 1327 relates to public buildings and 
public places open to the public. In addition decree 2014-1326 was adopted to review the 
standards of adaptation works in relation to the accessibility of existing buildings. 

After construction or renovation work has been completed, or the deadline has passed, a 
building  that  does  not  conform  to  accessibility  requirements  could  be  shut  down  by 
administrative  order  (Article  111-8-3  of  the  Construction  and  Housing  Code).  Public 
subsidies  for  construction  and  renovation  projects  are  conditional  on  accessibility 
requirements  being  respected  (Article  111-26  paragraph  IV  of  the  Construction  and 
Housing Code).  

Articles  L441-1,  441-3  and  441-5  of  the  Construction  and  Housing  Code  provide  for  a 
priority in the allocation of social housing for disabled persons and their families, however 
decrees  of  application  necessary  to  the  enforcement  of  these  provisions  have  not  been 
adopted.  The  HALDE  recommended  their  adoption  in  2006.182  To  date,  the  Government 
has not acted on the HALDE’s recommendation.  

3.2.10.1  Trends and patterns regarding housing segregation for Roma 

In France there are patterns of housing segregation and discrimination against Roma. 

The  Traveller  population  is  subject  to  specific  rules  of  accommodation.  Municipalities  of 
more  than  5  000  inhabitants  have  an  obligation  to  accommodate  travelling  populations 
by providing settlement areas as stipulated by Law No. 2000-614 of 5 July 2000, and the 
technical  requirements  of  these  areas  are  provided  by  decree  2001-569  of  29  June 
2001183 reviewing legislation that was first adopted in 1990 (Law No. 90-449 of 31 May 
1990). 

The  installation  of  motor  homes  on  unauthorised  parking  spaces  is  sanctioned  by 
administrative  expulsion  measures  created  by  Law  No.  2003-239  of  18  March  2003.184 
Although the law provides that a municipality  which has not satisfied its legal obligation 
cannot  expel  illegally  parked  Roma  Travellers,  the  concentration  of  Travellers  and  the 
insufficiency of available space is a major problem.  

According  to  the  most  recent  data  referred  to  in  a  report  by  the  Auditor  General  (Cour 
des  comptes)  of  2012  evaluating  public  policy  on  Roma,185  96  departmental  schemes 
were  adopted.  Of  the  41  589  places  planned  by  the  authorities  (NGOs  consider  that 

182  Halde Deliberation 2006-150, available at:http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr. 
183  France, Law of 5 July 2000, see above note 135; Decree 2001-569 of 29 June 2001 relating to technical 
rules applicable to areas of accommodation of Travellers (Décret n°2001-569 du 29 juin 2001 relatif aux 
normes techniques applicables aux aires d'accueil des gens du voyage), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jopdf/common/jo_pdf/jsp?numJO=0&dateJO=20010701&numTexte=6&page
Debut=10540&pageFin=10540 (accessed 6 September 2016).  

184  France, Law No. 2003-239 of 18 March 2003 on interior security (Loi No. 2003-239 du 18 mars 2003 pour la 

sécurité intérieure), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000412199 (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

185  France, Auditor General, The accomodation of Travellers, 10 December 2012, (Cour des comptes, 10 

décembre 2012, L’acueil et l’accompagnement des gens du voyage) available at: 
http://www.ccomptes.fr/Publications/Publications/L-accueil-et-l-accompagnement-des-gens-du-voyage 
(accessed 6 September 2016). 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
60 000  are  needed),  52  %  of  the  programmed  parking  areas  for  Roma  and  Travellers 
and  27  %  of  areas  for  large-scale  events  had  been  implemented.  Their  manifest 
insufficiency  therefore  increases  illegal  parking,  monitoring  by  the  police  and  the 
criminalisation of the way of life of Roma and  Travellers, since they are  concentrated in 
areas  that  have  satisfied  their  legal  obligations,  while  offering  an  insufficient  number  of 
spaces.  

When  a  municipality  fails  to  put in  place  specific  sites  for  the  travelling  population, it is 
barred  from  seeking  the  removal  of  Travellers’  trailers  and  from  prohibiting  parking186 
and can be challenged for this failure before the administrative courts. 

In this context of insufficient parking provision, there is no widespread policy to facilitate 
the settlement of Travellers.  

Some families attempt to purchase land, which for economic reasons is often situated in 
areas  where  residential  construction  is  not  permitted,  and  they  thereby  enter  into 
complicated  legal  conflicts  with  municipalities  with  respect  to  their  conditions  of 
occupation  of  the  land.  Many  mayors  adopt  decrees  to  forbid  motor  home  parking  on 
their entire territory, in order to prevent authorised parking on private land. Even though 
such  decrees  have  systematically  been  found  to  be  illegal,  this  situation  increases 
monitoring, evictions and an overall atmosphere of a denial of access to rights.187  

The  reluctance  of  the  central  Government  to  ensure  the  enforcement  of  parking 
provisions  in  a  context  of  increased  repression  could  be  deemed  to  be  a  de  facto  non-
compliance with respect to Directive 2000/43/EC as regards housing rights.  

186  High Judicial Court of Montauban, No. 02/00171, 03 May 2002. Available at: 
www.rajf.org/article/php3?id_article=1043 (accessed 6 September 2016).  

187  Bordeaux Administrative Appeals Court, No. 03BX00379, 1 December 2005. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4  EXCEPTIONS 

4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) 

In  France  national  legislation  provides  for  an  exception  for  genuine  and  determining 
occupational requirements. 

Article  2,  paragraph  3,  and  Article  6,  paragraph  3,  of  Law  No.  2008-496  created  the 
general  possibility  of  raising  an  exception  based  on  genuine  and  determining 
occupational  requirements.  It  appears  to  be  a  regression  compared  to  the  absence  of 
such an exception prior to the adoption of this law. In addition, it is framed in terms that 
are too broad, leaving open the possibility of justifying occupational requirements in each 
individual case. Article 6, paragraph 3 of the Law provides: 

‘The  prohibition  of  discrimination  does  not  forbid  difference  in  treatment  if  it 
constitutes  a  genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirement,  as  long  as  the 
objective pursued is legitimate and the requirement proportionate.’188 

The following question has been referred to the Court of Justice by the Court of Cassation 
in the Bougnaoui case:189  

‘Must  Article  4(1)  of  Council  Directive  78/2000/EC  of  27  November  2000 
establishing  a  general  framework  for  equal  treatment  in  employment  and 
occupation  1  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  the  wish  of  a  customer  of  an 
information  technology  consulting  company  no  longer  to  have  the  information 
technology services of that company provided by an employee, a design engineer, 
wearing  an  Islamic  headscarf,  is  a  genuine  and  determining  occupational 
requirement,  by  reason  of  the  nature  of  the  particular  occupational  activities 
concerned or of the context in which they are carried out?’ 

4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

2000/78) 

In  France  national  law  does  not  provide  for  an  exception  for  employers  with  an  ethos 
based on religion or belief. 

- 

Conflicts  between  rights  of  organisations  with  an  ethos  based  on  religion  or  belief 
and other rights to non-discrimination 

In  France  there  are  no  specific  provisions  or  case-law  in  this  area  relating  to  conflicts 
between  the  rights  of  organisations  with  an  ethos  based  on  religion  or  belief  and  other 
rights to non-discrimination.  

Ever since the decision of the Court of Cassation on 17 April 1991 in Fraternité Ste Pie, 
the religious orientation of the employer does not justify an exception to the application 
of Article L122-45 LC (now Article L1132-1 ff. LC). In this landmark case, which preceded 
the  directive,  the  court  decided  that  the  sexual  orientation  of  the  employee  was  not  in 
and  of  itself  sufficient  to  justify  dismissal.  At  the  time,  it  considered  that  the  employer 
was  required  to  establish  that  the  behaviour  of  the  employee  had,  considering  their 
function  and  their  objective  behaviour,  generated  substantial  disruption  (‘trouble 

188  France, Law 27 May 2008, Article 6 Para. 3: ‘L'article L. 1133-1 est ainsi rétabli: ‘Art. L. 1133-1.-L'article L. 

1132-1 ne fait pas obstacle aux différences de traitement, lorsqu'elles répondent à une exigence 
professionnelle essentielle et déterminante et pour autant que l'objectif soit légitime et l'exigence 
proportionnée.´ 

189  CJEU, Case C-188-15, Bougnaoui, presently pending before the Court of Justice. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
caractérisé’)  within  the  community.190  In  1993,  the  Court  of  Appeal  of  Montpellier 
concluded that provocative distasteful behaviour could justify dismissal.191  

External  symbols  of  an  individual’s  religion,  such  as  wearing  a  headscarf,  are  forbidden 
for  all  members  of  the  public  service,  who  must  respect  the  principle  of  neutrality192 
whether or not they are in contact with the public. 

In a decision regarding the clothing of people working for French social security - which is 
a  private  employer  executing  the  functions  of  a  public  service  -  the  Court  of  Cassation 
decided  that  a  private  employer  executing  a  public  service  can  adopt  and  enforce  in-
house regulations in order to implement the principle of secularism contained in Article 1 
of the Constitution in relation to its employees, even if they are subject to a private law 
contract  governed  by  the  Labour  Code.193  This  right  of  the  employer  is  applicable  to  all 
employees,  whether  or  not  they  are  in  contact  with  the  general  public.  Restrictions  on 
freedom of religion can be justified by the nature of the particular occupational activities 
concerned  and  the  context  in  which  they  were  carried  out,  and  thereby  constitute  a 
genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirement,  provided  that  the  objective  is 
legitimate and the requirement is proportionate and the in-house regulations specific and 
precise.  The  case  concerned  here  provides  an  example  of  a  restriction  which  is 
sufficiently  precise  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  precision  and  proportionality  of  a 
genuine and determining occupational requirement and holds as acceptable a prohibition 
targeting  clothing  and  a  general  rule  of  neutrality  covering  not  only  religion  but  also 
ethnic origin or ideological conviction.  

- 

Religious institutions affecting employment in state-funded entities 

In  France  religious  institutions  are  not  permitted  to  select  people  (on  the  basis  of  their 
religion),  to  hire  or  to  dismiss  them  from  a  job  if  that  job  is  in  a  state  entity  or  in  an 
entity financed by the state. 

4.3  Armed  forces  and  other  specific  occupations  (Article  3(4)  and  Recital  18 

Directive 2000/78) 

In France national legislation provides for an exception for the armed forces in relation to 
age or disability discrimination (Article 3(4), Directive 2000/78/EC). 

France has availed itself of the exception of Article 3 (4) of Directive 2000/78/EC allowing 
derogations concerning criteria based on age and disability by way of a declaration to the 
European  Commission.  However,  the  formal  job  specifications  for  career  under-officers 
do not contain requirements based on age or physical aptitude. 

4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) 

a)  Discrimination on the ground of nationality 

In  France  national  law  includes  exceptions  relating  to  difference  of  treatment  based  on 
nationality.  

The principle of non-discrimination allows for no exception because of nationality. 

However, as documented by the report produced by the GELD, French legislation creates 
some legal discrimination in access to specific professions and jobs (about 7 000 named 
jobs  in  a  number  of  different  pieces  of  legislation),  subjecting  them  to  conditions  of 

190  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 17 April 1991, Droit Social 1991, 485. 
191  Court of Appeal of Montpelier, 28 January 1993. 
192  Conseil d'Etat, Mlle Marteaux No. 217017, 3 May 2000; Conseil d'Etat, No. 244428, 15 October 2003. 
193  Court of Cassation, No. 12-11.690 45, 19 March 2013. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
citizenship,  whether  national,  from  bilateral  partner  countries,  such  as  some  African 
countries, or from the European Union. 

In  France  nationality  (as  in  citizenship) is  explicitly  mentioned  as  a  protected  ground  in 
the  Penal  Code.  For  the  remaining  French  anti-discrimination  law,  it  is  not  explicitly 
mentioned  as  a  protected  ground,  but  has  been  interpreted  by  courts  as  being  covered 
by the ground ‘national origin’. 

The definition of the scope of the protection against discrimination in Article 2 of Law No. 
2008-496  eliminated  the  wider  list  of  grounds  which  initially  appeared  in  Article  19  of 
Law  No.  2004-1486194  (Law  creating  the  HALDE)  and  the  first  law  transposing  the 
directives (Law No. 2001-1006 of 16  November 2001), both  of which  explicitly included 
national  origin,  which  has  been  interpreted  by  courts  to  cover  differential  treatment 
based  on  citizenship  and  specific  requirements  illegally  imposed  on  third-country 
nationals. The resulting protection regarding the scope of Directive/2000/43/EC does not 
explicitly  cover  national  origin  except  when  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  list  of  prohibited 
grounds in Article 225-1 of the Penal Code and Article 1132-1 of the Labour Code.  

Although  it  will  have  very  limited  impact  on  the  interpretation  of  legal  residents’  rights, 
given  that  they  are  covered  by  labour  law,  penal  law  and  legal  residents  benefit  from 
equal treatment in the application of the Constitution and general principles of public law, 
Law  No.  2008-496  expressly  states  for  the  first  time  that  the  law  prohibiting 
discrimination applies without prejudice to provisions governing the entry and residence 
of third-country nationals (Article 5, paragraph 2). 

b) 

Relationship between nationality and ‘race or ethnic origin’ 

In relation to discrimination based on race or ethnic origin, whether it is direct or indirect, 
nationality  and  nationality  of  origin  is  regularly  treated  as  an  acceptable  indication  to 
constitute  the  comparable  group  in  order  to  establish  unequal  treatment.  Nationality  is 
often  assimilated  with  origin  when  the  law  does  not  allow  restrictions  based  on 
nationality.  

In  many  criminal  cases  the  criteria  of  nationality  has  been  held  to  be  a  form  of  direct 
discrimination  based  on  origin,  as  the  Penal  Code  refers  to  discrimination  based  on  the 
link with a nation.  

In civil cases the Court of Cassation has treated discrimination based on nationality as a 
source  of  apparent  indirect  discrimination  that  allows  for  justification  on  the  part  of  the 
employer.195  In  this  case,  since  1993  a  collective  agreement  had  stipulated  that 
employees of foreign nationality received a yearly bonus, even after having been in post 
with  the  company  in  France  for  a  number  of  years  (in  some  cases  20  years).  In  this 
situation,  the  court  was  faced  with  unequal  financial  benefits  that  could  not  be  justified 
by  the  specifics  of  the  work  performed  by  the  employee.  First,  the  court  decided  that 
Article  12  of  the  EU  Treaty  did  not  cover  this  situation.  In  relation  to  the  argument  of 
indirect discrimination on the ground of  origin, it further held that, in a high technology 
research  installation,  the  business  need  to  attract  talented  scientists  from  abroad,  and 
the  necessary  compensation  related  to  the  expatriation  of  their  families,  were  sufficient 
justifications  of  the  adverse  effect  on  the  basis  of  origin  to  allow  unequal  remuneration 
based on nationality: attraction of workforce when proportionate is objectively justified. 

194  France, Law No. 2004-1486 of 30 December 2004 creating the Commission against discrimination and Equal 
Opportunities (Loi No. 2004-1486 du 30 décembre 2004 portant création de la haute autorité de lutte contre 
les discriminations et pour l'égalité), available at: 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000423967 (accessed 6 Septembre 
2016). 

195  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, ESRF v. M. X., No. 03-47720, 9 November 2005, confirmed in another 

matter against ESRF on 17 April 2008 (Soc. 819 FS-P+B). 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
On  21  September  2015,  the  Paris  Employment  Tribunal  rendered  a  decision  regarding 
the  liability  of  the  SNCF  (French  National  Railway  Company)  towards  832  migrant 
workers of Moroccan nationality, who were hired to fill lower execution jobs but were not 
hired under the same conditions as the French employees — the regulatory status of the 
SNCF  imposing  a  requirement  of  French  nationality  to  be  hired  under  the  permanent 
employee  status.  The  Moroccan  employees  were  hired  as  contractual  agents  under  a 
specific status ‘PS25’, which was used for temporary employees and for people holding a 
list  of  jobs  that  were  not  covered  by  the  statutory  regime.  Plaintiffs  spent  all  of  their 
careers  at  SNCF.  Their  specific  employment  conditions  were  less  favourable  than  those 
applicable  to  French  permanent  employees:  they  did  not  have  access  to  promotion 
beyond a certain level of lower execution jobs (only 2 % of French employees holding the 
permanent  status  ended  their  career  at  these  levels),  these  jobs  were  more  physically 
strenuous  (which  had  an  impact  on  their  physical  condition  at  retirement),  lower  salary 
growth, less favourable overtime conditions and less favourable retirement conditions in 
terms  of  period  of  service  and  age  requirements  for  access  to  a  full  pension,  financial 
conditions  of  retirement  and  financial  conditions  of  their  widows  pension  rights  (an 
average of EUR 300 per month). Although half of the 2 000 Moroccan employees became 
French  citizens,  only  113  obtained  the  permanent  employee  status  reserved  to  French 
citizens and all the other Moroccan employees hired in the 1970s kept the PS25 status.  

The  claimants  filed  suit  after  retirement,  claiming  damages  for  their  career  and 
retirement  conditions.  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  court  explicitly  found  that  the  ILO 
Convention No. 111 and Article 14  of the  ECHR were applicable to raise the illegality of 
regulations limiting access to the  permanent employee status to French citizens, as well 
as  general  principles  of  anti-discrimination  provided  by  EU  law  without  referring  to  any 
precise  legal  provision.  In  addition,  the  employment  contract  provided  for  equal 
remuneration  (covering  accessory  advantages)  with  French  employees  having  similar 
employment.  The  court  held  that  jobs  covered  by  employment  status  PS25  were 
comparable  to  those  held  by  French  employees,  but  were  only  designated  otherwise  in 
order  to  employ  foreign  employees  under  another  employment  status  and  meet  the 
formal  requirements  of  the  two  employment  statuses.  SNCF  could  not  prove  that  the 
activities  of  the  French  employees  holding  comparable  jobs  related  to  the  exercise  of 
sovereignty  justifying  a  distinct  status  reserved  to  French  nationals.  Therefore,  the 
claimants’  employment  status  constitutes  direct  discrimination  on  the  ground  of 
nationality  and  the  criteria  of  nationality  is  the  basis  of  indirect  discrimination  on  the 
ground  of  the  origin  of  these  non-national  migrant  workers.  Claims  were  admitted, 
except  in  a  few  cases,  and  the  claimants  were  awarded  damages  ranging  from 
EUR 150 000 to EUR 250 000. SNCF has appealed before the Paris Court of Appeal.196 

As regards research and statistical data, most French studies on discrimination based on 
origin use the parameter of nationality of origin for monitoring purposes, since  no other 
criterion is generally admitted. 

4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Benefits for married employees 

In  France  it  would  not  constitute  unlawful  discrimination  in  national  law  if  an  employer 
only provides benefits to those employees who are married. 

Marriage  is  a  legal  source  of  rights  and  the  law  creates  some  rights  to  the  exclusive 
benefit  of  married  couples,  whether  they  are  patrimonial  rights  (inheritance)  or  work-
related  benefits  created  by  law  or  collective  agreements.  The  Labour  Code  awards 
holidays for couples getting married (Article L3142-1 LC).  

196  Paris Employment Tribunal, RG No.F 05/12309 and following, 21 September 2015, 832 Migrant workers v 

French National Railway Company (SNCF). 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Meanwhile, the Civil Solidarity  Pact (PACS)  created by Law  No. 99-944 of 15  November 
1999  is  a  registered  partnership  which  was  open  to  same-sex  couples  before  marriage 
was legalised in 2013.  

However,  before  same-sex  marriage  was  legalised,  some  rights  that  were  reserved  for 
married couples were not accessible for same-sex partners. 

In 2007 the HALDE  concluded that reserving extra days of  holiday for family events  for 
married  heterosexual  couples  and  creating  a  premium  for  employees’  weddings  in  a 
collective agreement constituted direct discrimination based on family status and indirect 
discrimination based on sexual orientation.197 The Government took the position that the 
PACS  was  a  civil  contract  which  was  not  aimed  at  creating  a  family  status,  and  that 
therefore  this  reasoning  did  not  apply.  The  Court  of  Cassation  referred  a  preliminary 
ruling on this issue to the CJEU on 23 May 2012, in a case challenging the provisions of a 
collective agreement of the Crédit Agricole.  

In a decision of 12 December 2013 the CJEU decided, further to a referral from the Court 
of Cassation in the case of Hay v. Crédit Agricole,198 that, if marriage is not accessible to 
same-sex partners, a salaried employee who enters a contractual union with a same-sex 
partner must benefit from the same advantages as those conferred upon their colleagues 
when they marry.  The  refusal to confer such benefits  on an employee constitutes direct 
discrimination  on  the  ground  of  sexual  orientation.  Prior  to  the  law  legalising  marriage 
between  same-sex  partners,  the  French  Government  had  always  refused  to  amend 
Articles  3142-1  ff.  of  the  Labour  Code,  which  denies  family  holidays  for  same-sex 
partners. 

Law  No.  2013-404  of  17  May  2013  opened  marriage  to  same-sex  couples,199  and 
therefore the issue  only remains with respect to rights  which are not  accessible to non-
married couples and which have arisen prior to its adoption. 

b) 

Benefits for employees with opposite-sex partners 

In France it would constitute unlawful discrimination under Article L1132-1 of the Labour 
Code  if  an  employer  only  provided  benefits  to  those  employees  with  opposite-sex 
partners. 

The  Law  No.  2013-404  of  17  May  2013  opened  marriage  to  same-sex  couples  and 
therefore rights related to marriage are not specific to heterosexual couples. 

4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Exceptions in relation to disability and health/safety 

In France, Article 24 II of Law 2005-102 on the rights of disabled people does provide for 
exceptions  in  relation  to  disability  and  health  and  safety  (Article  7(2),  Directive 
2000/78/EC). 

Article  1133-3  of  the  Labour  Code  provides  that,  unequal  treatment  based  on  the 
decision  that  a  person  is  not  physically  able  to  do  the  job  by  reason  of  health  or 
disability,  as  determined  by  the  occupational  health  doctor  after  having  taken  into 

197  HALDE Deliberation No. 2007-366 of 11 February 2008, available at:http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr. 
198  CJEU, C-267/12, 12 December 2013. 
199  France, Law No. 2013-404 of 17 May 2013, opening marriage to persons of same sex (Loi No. 2013-404 du 

17 mai 2013 ouvrant le mariage aux couples de personnes de même sexe), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000027414540 (accessed 6 September 
2016 ). 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
consideration  the  possibilities  of  reasonable  accommodation  of  the  work  environment 
and/or working conditions, does not constitute discrimination.  

Article  225-3  PC  enumerates  a  list  of  admissible  exceptions  to  the  principle  of  non-
discrimination set out in Articles 225-1 and 225-2 PC: operations related to life, invalidity 
and  incapacity insurance  as  regards  the  ground  of  health  (paragraph  1);  refusal  to  hire 
an  individual  on  the  ground  of  their  health  or  disability,  only  when  it  results  from  a 
certificate of incapacity provided by the occupational medicine authorities (paragraph 2). 

4.7  Exceptions  related  to  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  age  (Article  6 

Directive 2000/78) 

4.7.1  Direct discrimination 

In  France  national  law  provides  an  exception  for  direct  discrimination  on  the  ground  of 
age.  

Article 6 of Law No. 2008-496 allows the recognition of a legitimate reference to age in 
the  following  circumstances:  differences  in  treatment  on  the  basis  of  age  are  not 
discriminatory  when  they  are  reasonably  and  objectively  justified  by  a  legitimate 
objective,  such  as  those  specified  in  the  law,  namely  health  requirements  and  worker’s 
safety,  professional  insertion,  maintaining  employment,  redeployment  or  compensation 
in  case  of  loss  of  employment,  and  when  the  means  to  attain  these  objectives  are 
appropriate and necessary.  

In addition, age limitations in employment can be authorised as genuine and determining 
occupational requirements pursuant to Article 4 of  Directive 2000/78/EC, transposed by 
Law No. 2008-496 in Article 2, paragraph 3 and Article 6, paragraph 3. 

a) 

Justification of direct discrimination on the ground of age 

In  France  it  is  possible,  generally,  or  in  specified  circumstances,  to  justify  direct 
discrimination on the ground of age.  

The  possibility  for  each  employer  to  create  and  justify  exceptions  to  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination on the ground of age seems too wide and appears to delegate to individual 
employers  the  possibility  given  to  government  to  create  legitimate  differences  in 
treatment aimed at the protection of employees who are victims of their age.  

Therefore,  it  would  appear  not  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  Mangold  and 
Kücükdeveci  cases.  However,  when  it  is  argued,  French  courts  have  implemented  strict 
tests verifying the objective pursued by the age limitation and its proportionality. 

Cases  relating  to  statutory  age  limitations  in  specific  employment  have  only  been 
deemed  justified  after  a  stringent  scrutiny  of  performance  requirements  in  the  case  of 
pilots  and  air  traffic  controllers.200  However,  they  can  never  be  deemed  justified  if  the 
employee is not entitled to a full pension.201 

Situations  also  arise  which  do  not  relate  to  the  implementation  of  public  policy  but 
decisions made by employers. A number of cases have held that differential treatment of 

200  Court of Cassation Social Chamber, No. 08-45307, 11 May 2010, available at: 

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000022214723&f
astReqId=419955441&fastPos=1 (accessed 6 September 2016); Court of Cassation Social Chamber, No. 
09-72061, 16 February 2011; Conseil d’Etat, No. 362785, 4 April 2014.  

201  Court of Cassation Social Chamber, No. 08-4381, 11 May 2010. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
older workers close to retirement age, in relation to redundancy compensation, was not 
discriminatory if it was reasonable and proportionate.202 203  

Justifications  based  on  requirements  of  human  resources  management  have  been 
deemed too general and not proportionate.204 In a 2014 decision, the Court of Cassation 
decided  that  overtly  denying  pilots  access  to  training  on  a  new  plane  because  of 
imminent  retirement  constitutes  age  discrimination,  since  retirement  age  can  be 
postponed in France and younger workers can also leave the company.205 

b) 

Permitted differences of treatment based on age 

In  France  national  law  does  not  permit  differences  of  treatment  based  on  age  for  any 
activities within the material scope of Directive 2000/78/EC. 

In the public sector,  Article 6, paragraph 4 of  Law No. 83-634 of 13 July 1983 imposed 
conditions of age to access to employment in the civil service.  

Previous  age  limitations  were  removed  by  Article  1  of  Executive  Order  2005-901,206 
except in access to public service in the following cases: 

- 
- 

- 

agents in active armed service subject to early retirement (army, police, etc.); 
conditions  related  to  minimum  age  requirements  in  view  of  the  experience  called 
for by the function, for example to take on higher management responsibilities;  
entry  examination  conditions  for  admission  to  a  specialist  school  to  follow  an 
education  programme  of  a  duration  of  2  years  or  more  financed  by  the  State.  In 
this  case,  the  Government  should  raise  the  age  limitations  to  15  years  from 
retirement.  

The considerations based on age in the public sector appear to meet the requirements of 
the Mangold and Kïcükdeveci cases as they pursue legitimate objectives and an effort has 
been made to meet the test of proportionality. 

c) 

Fixing  of  ages  for  admission  or  entitlements  to  benefits  of  occupational  pension 
schemes 

In France national law allows occupational pension schemes to fix ages for admission to 
the  scheme  or  entitlement  to  benefits,  taking  up  the  possibility  provided  for  by  Article 
6(2).  

The general rule stated in Articles 17 and 18 of Law No. 2010-1330 of 9 November 2010 
is  that  the  age  of  entitlement  increases  by  four  months  each  year  from  2010  until  it 
reaches a maximum of 62 years in 2018, provided the employee has contributed for 42 
years (the number of years may vary according to the retirement regime).207 Exceptions 
to the general rule, identified in  Section 4.7.4 b), are also  subject to  age requirements. 

202  Court of Cassation Social Chamber, No. 09-42071, 17 November 2010. 
203  Court of Cassation Social Chamber, No. 10-24219, 5 December 2012. 
204  Court of Cassation Social Chamber, No. 10-10465, 16 February 2011. 
205  Court of Cassation Social Chamber, No. 13-10294, 18 February 2014. 
206  France, Executive Order No. 2005-901 of 2 August 2005 relating to conditions of age in accessing public 

service (Ordonnance No. 2005-901 du 2 août 2005 relative aux conditions d'âge dans la fonction publique et 
instituant un nouveau parcours d'accès aux carrières de la fonction publique territoriale, de la fonction 
publique hospitalière et de la fonction publique de l'Etat), available at: 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000262918&dateTexte=&categorieLie
n=id (accessed 6 September 2016). 

207  France, Law No. 2010-1330 of 9 November 2010 reforming retirement schemes (Loi No. 2010-1330 du 9 

novembre 2010 portant réforme des retraites), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000023022127&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id%20 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Article  L1133-2LC  provides  for  the  possibility  to  derogate  from  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination on the basis of employment policy.  

4.7.2  Special  conditions  for  young  people,  older  workers  and  persons  with 

caring responsibilities  

In France there are special conditions set by law for older or younger workers in order to 
promote  their  vocational integration,  or  for  people  with  caring  responsibilities  to  ensure 
their protection.  

Article  L3141-9  LC  provides  for  additional  holiday  days  for  working  mothers  under  21 
years of age. The Government has undertaken to extend this benefit to young fathers.  

For  younger  workers  Articles  L6325-1  ff.  LC  set  up  a  special  regime  for  apprenticeship 
embodied  in  the  apprenticeship  qualification  contract  for  candidates  under  25  years  of 
age.  

Article  L1233-5  LC  requires  the  employer  to  take  into  account  age  and  disability  as 
protecting factors in establishing the list of targeted employees in the event of economic 
redundancy  and  Article  L1233-61  LC  requires  the  employer  to  establish  a  plan  to 
organise its priorities in the redeployment and re-employment of older workers. Article R 
5123-9  ff.  LC  sets  a  special  regime  to  indemnify  workers  over  57  years  of  age  until 
retirement age in case of dismissal.  

Article  L1237-5  of  the  Labour  Code  requires  the  employer  to  ask  the  employee  every 
year, between the age of 65 and the age of 70, whether they wish to stay in employment 
or to retire. 

A  number  of  provisions  establish  the  possibility  for  caring  parents  to  obtain  leave  of 
absence  to  take  care  of  sick  children  (Article  L1225-62  LC),  and  for  end  of  life  care 
(Article L3142-16 LC), an extension of parental leave after having a disabled child (Article 
L1225-61 LC) and a right to adaptation of work hours for  an employee caring for family 
members with a disability (Article L3122-26 LC) (see Section 2.6 a)).  

Article  2  of  governmental  decree  2005-901  of  2  August  2005  provides  new  means  of 
access to certain functions in the public service without entry examination, by combining 
formal training with internships, for people between 16 and 25 years of age who have left 
school  without  recognised  diplomas,  or  with  an  insufficient  level  of  education  to  obtain 
level C employment in the public service (lowest level).  

The Government adopted Law No. 2012-1189 of 26 October 2012 to put in place in 2012 
a  scheme  to  promote  employment  of  young  workers  under  25  years  of  age,  called 
‘Contract of employment for the future’ (Contrats emplois d’avenir).208 It creates Articles 
L5134-110  ff.  of  the  Labour  Code,  creating  a  specific  employment  contract  of  one  to 
three  years,  benefiting  from  a  special  social  contribution  regime  and  financing  by  the 
state  in  order  to  facilitate  access  to  employment  and  professional  training  for  workers 
between  the  ages  of  16  and  25,  and  30  in  the  case  of  disabled  people,  who  have  low 
levels  of  qualifications  in  sectors  with  high  employment  development  potential  and 
sectors  of  social  and  environmental  utility  identified  by  the  regional  authority  (Conseil 
régional). Decree No. 2012-1210 of 31 October 2012, modified by Decree No. 2014-188 

208  France, Law No. 2012-1189 of 26 October 2012 creating jobs for a future (Loi No. 2012-1189 du 26 octobre 

2012 portant création des emplois d'avenir), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000026536632&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id (accessed 6 September 2016). 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of 20 February 2014, sets out the specific requirements and conditions of regional state 
financing.209 

4.7.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements 

In  France  there  are  exceptions  permitting  minimum  and  maximum  age  requirements  in 
relation to access to employment (notably in the public sector) and training. 

The permissible age to enter the workforce is regulated by Article L4153-1 LC, which sets 
16 years of age as the general norm, without prejudice to specific regimes (qualification 
and  apprenticeship  contracts  L6325-1  LC  ff.  at  15)  and  summer  employment  after  the 
age of 14.  

There is no maximum age in the private sector. Moreover, Article L5331-2 LC forbids an 
offer of employment to be made containing a limitation of age that would not otherwise 
be  imposed  by  law.  The  legal  protection  against  dismissal  is  applicable  to  all  workers 
regardless of age.  

However,  as  mentioned  above,  Article  L1133-1,  paragraph  2  LC  allows  for  a  maximum 
age  requirement  ‘for  recruiting,  based  on  the  required  training  for  the  function  or  the 
requirement of pursuing a reasonable period of employment before retirement’.  

The general age limitation in the public service is 67 years of age (Article 28 of the Law 
of 9 November 2010), with specific derogations for specific branches of the service). 

Further  to  the  adoption  of  Law  2009-972  of  3  August  2009210  relating  to  mobility  and 
professional career in the public service, the Government adopted Decree 2013-593 of 5 
July 2013211 relating to conditions of admission to entry examination of access to higher 
civil service, which provides at article 13 that the Government may adopt age limitations 
to access to corps of higher civil service by decree. Even if this possibility remains, it has 
not  adopted  such  a  decree,  therefore  age  limitations  which  previously  applied  are  no 
longer in force.  

4.7.4  Retirement  

a) 

State pension age 

In  France  there  is  a  state  pension  age  at  which  individuals  must  begin  to  collect  their 
state pensions.  

If an individual wishes to work longer, their pension can be deferred. 

An individual can collect a pension and still work. An employee can collect their pension 
from  the  age  of  60  (an  age  which  will  progressively  increase  to  62  by  2018),  at  which 
time the amount will depend on the number of years of contribution, in accordance with 
Law  No.  2003-775  of  21  August  2003.212  Article  351-8  of  the  Social  Security  Code 

209  France, Decree No. 2014-188 of 20 February 2014 modifying the decree relating to jobs for a future (Décret 
No. 2014-188 du 20 février 2014 portant modification du décret No. 2012-1210 du 31 octobre 2012 relatif à 
l'emploi d'avenir), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000262918&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id (accessed 6 September 2016). 

210 France, Law No, 2009-972 of 3 August 2009, available at: 

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000020954520&fastPos=1&fastReqId=13
75373593&categorieLien=cid&oldAction=rechTexte. 

211  http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000027666449&categorieLien=id. 
212  France, Law 2003-775 of 21 August 2003 reforming old age pensions (Loi No. 2003-775 du 21 août 2003 

portant réforme des retraites), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000781627 France, Law No. 2006-396 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
establishes  as  65  (an  age  which  will  progressively  increase  to  67  by  2023)  the  age  at 
which minimum full state retirement is accessible independent of the number of years of 
contribution.  

Rights to the state pension are subject to both conditions of age and number of years of 
contribution.  The  general  rule  is  that  a  salaried  worker  can  claim  the  right  to  a  state 
pension from 60 years of age (rising to 62) provided that they have contributed for 41.5 
years (the number of years may vary according to the retirement regime).  

However, people who began to work before 18 years of age can claim a state pension at 
58 years of age, provided they have contributed for 41.5 years, plus two years. Disabled 
employees and  employees caring for a disabled child can benefit from full retirement at 
the  age  of  65  even  if  they  have  not  contributed  the  required  number  of  years  (Article 
L351-8 of the Social Security Code). Article 18 of the Law No. 2010- 1330 of 9 November 
2010 lowers the retirement age giving the right to a full pension from 65 to 60 years of 
age in the private sector for disabled people with a registered disability level of 80 %.213  

On 27 June 2006 Law  No. 2006-737 adopted increasing retirement benefits for disabled 
public  servants  to  increase  pension  rights  by  30  %  for  each  year  of  disability  during 
service and lowering the retirement age accordingly.214 

Employees  caring  for  a  disabled  child  can  also  benefit  from  the  possibility  of  an  early 
pension.215  

Since 1984, in order to receive a state pension, a salaried worker must resign from their 
current  employment,  but  they  can  thereafter  find  another  employment  in  the  private 
sector.  

Employees  are  never  otherwise  forced  to  retire  and,  if  they  collect  their  state  pension, 
they  can  continue  to  work.  However,  from  the  time  they  start  collecting  their  state 
pension, employees cannot collect unemployment benefits.216 

b)  Occupational pension schemes 

In  France  there  is  a  normal  age  when  people  can  begin  to  receive  payments  from 
occupational pension schemes. Occupational pension schemes are managed by the state 

of 31 March 2006 on equal opportunities (Loi No. 2006-396 du 31 mars 2006 pour l'égalité des chances) 
Article 2, available at: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000268539 
(accessed 6 September 2016). 

213  France, Law No. 2010-1330 of 9 November 2010 reforming retirement (Loi No. 2010-1330 du 9 novembre 

2010 portant réforme des retraites), available at: 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000023022127 (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

214  France, Law No. 2006-737 of 27 June 2006 providing for an increase in pension for disabled civil servants 

(Loi No. 2006-737 du 27 juin 2006 visant à accorder une majoration de pension de retraite aux 
fonctionnaires handicapés), available at: 
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000816584 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

215  France, Decree No. 2005-1774 of 30 December 2005, relating to pension increase on the ground of 

disability, Journal officiel, No. 304, 31 December 2005, p. 20856, (Décret No. 2005-1774 du 30 décembre 
2005 relatif à la détermination de la majoration de pension applicable aux assurés Sociaux handicapés 
bénéficiant de l'abaissement de l'âge de la retraite) available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000265458&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id (accessed 6 September 2016). 
France, Decree No. 2005-1761 of 29 December 2005 relating to financial support for single parents of 
handicaped children (Décret n°2005-1761 du 29 décembre 2005 relatif à la majoration spécifique pour 
parent isolé d'enfant handicapé) available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000268753 (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

216  National Collective Agreement safeguarding the personalised redeployment agreement (Accord National 
Interprofessionnel de sécurisation de la convention de reclassement personnalisé), 23 December 2008). 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
and  follow  rules  applicable  to  state  pension  schemes.217  Other  employer-funded 
retirement  benefits  arrangements,  over  and  above  legal  requirements,  are  purely 
contractual.  

If an individual wishes to work longer, payments from  all occupational pension schemes 
can be deferred subject to the same conditions as the state pension schemes. 

An individual can collect an occupational pension and still work. 

c) 

State imposed mandatory retirement ages 

In France there is no state-imposed mandatory retirement age in the private sector.  

There  is  a  compulsory  retirement  age  in  the  public  sector  (67  years  of  age  subject  to 
some derogations (Article 28 Law No. 2010-1330 of 9 November 2010)). 

d) 

Retirement ages imposed by employers 

In France national law does not permit private employers to set retirement ages (or ages 
at  which  the  termination  of  an  employment  contract  is  possible)  by  contract  and/or 
collective  bargaining  and/or  unilaterally  before  the  age  of  70.  Private  employers  can 
impose retirement at age 70 but they are not obliged to do so. 

Further  to  the  adoption  of  Law  No.  2008-1330  of  17  December  2008,  Article  1237-5  of 
the Labour Code refers to Article 351-8 of the Social Security Code to determine the age 
at which an employer can impose the retirement of an employee on the ground of age.218 
The  employer  can  propose  retirement  to  the  employee  at  age  65,  and  each  year 
thereafter. The employee may, however, defer such imposed retirement until they reach 
the age of 70. 

Article  L1237-5-1  LC  states  that  conditions  of  retirement  in  collective  agreements  and 
labour contracts are applicable as long as they do not contradict legal principles. Thus, all 
provisions  of  collective  agreements  and  other  labour  contracts  are  null  and  void  which 
would provide for the automatic interruption of the labour contract by reason of the age 
of the employee or because they would be entitled to benefit from an old age pension. 
There is a compulsory retirement age imposed by the employer  in the public sector (67 
years of age  subject to some derogations (Article 28 Law  no 2010-1330 of 9 November 
2010)). 

In  2012,  the  national  ski instructors’  union  adopted  a  regulation limiting  ski  instructors’ 
activity after 62 years of age and favouring young recruits in the distribution of teaching 
classes  in  order  to  favour  the  activity  of  young  instructors.  In  its  first  decision  dealing 
with  maximum  age  limitations  imposed  in  the  private  sector,  the  Court  of  Cassation 
(Supreme  Court)  decided  that  the  internal  regulation  violates  Law  No.  2008-496  of  28 
May 2008 and Directive 2000/78; it does not meet the requirements of Article 6(1)(a) of 
Directive  2000/78  because  it  favours  the  purely  individual  private  interests  that  are 
specific  to  ski  schools  and  their  concern  to  satisfy  the  requests  of  their  clients,  which 
therefore do not qualify as legitimate aims as provided by article L1133-2 of the Labour 
Code.219 

217  France, Law 2003-775 of 21 August 2003 reforming old age pensions. France, Law No. 2006-396 of 31 

March 2006 on equal opportunities.  

218  France, Law No. 2008-1330 of 17 December 2008, on financing social security (Loi No. 2008-1330 du 17 

décembre 2008 de financement de la sécurité Sociale pour 2009) available at: 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000019942966  (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

219  Court of Cassation, No. 13-27142, 17 March 2015, available at: 

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000030383142&f
astReqId=964259005&fastPos=50 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
e) 

Employment rights applicable to all workers irrespective of age 

The legal protection against dismissal is applicable to all workers regardless of age.  

However, Articles L1237-5-1 and 1237-8 LC provide for the right of the employer to end 
the  employment  contract  if  the  employee  has  attained  the  full  right  to  the  retirement 
pension  according  to  Article  L351-1  of  the  Social  Security  Code  and  is  70  years  of  age. 
Nevertheless,  as indicated above, retired  people can pursue  employment after receiving 
their pension.  

f) 

Compliance of national law with CJEU case law 

In  France  national  legislation  is  not  in  line  with  the  CJEU  case  law  on  age  regarding 
compulsory  retirement.  However,  in  France,  the  courts  are  bound  by  European  and 
international law before national law. Since national courts deem Directive 2000/78 to be 
directly applicable in case of legislative gap, they will enforce the CJEU case law. 

The possibility provided by Article 6 of Law 2008-496 (Article L1133-2 LC) allowing each 
employer  to  create  and  justify  exceptions  to  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  on  the 
ground  of  age  seems  too  wide  and  appears  to  delegate  to  individual  employers  the 
possibility given to government to create legitimate differences in treatment aimed at the 
protection of  employees who are victims of their age. Therefore, it would appear not to 
satisfy the requirements of CJEU case law on age. 

Some professions are still subject to statutory age limitations, but they are systematically 
challenged  and  the  Conseil  d’Etat  systematically  holds  them  to  be  contrary  to  Directive 
2000/78/EC  unless,  after  close  scrutiny,  it  finds  a  justification  based  on  safety 
requirements  and  an  inability  to  ensure  performance  in  view  of  the  physical  skills 
required (see cases cited in Section 4.7.1).  

Therefore,  it  cannot  be  said  that  all  legislation  in  respect  of  the  justification  of  age 
requirements  have  been  reviewed  in  conformity  with  the  requirement  set  out  in  the 
Prigge case, but judicial challenges are effective and the courts uphold CJEU case law.  

4.7.5  Redundancy 

a) 

Age and seniority taken into account for redundancy selection 

In  France  national  law  permits  age  or  seniority  to  be  taken  into  account  in  selecting 
workers for redundancy.  

Article  L1233-6  LC  provides  that,  in  case  of  redundancy  by  an  employer  with  50 
employees or more, conditions of dismissal are subject to the prior dismissal of younger 
employees  and  required  to  meet  specific  requirements  of  compensation  for  employees 
beyond 50 years of age.  

b) 

Age taken into account for redundancy compensation 

In France national law provides compensation for redundancy. This is affected by the age 
of the worker.  

The  legal  protection  against  dismissal  is  applicable  to  all  workers  regardless  of  age. 
Article  R5123-9  ff.  LC  sets  a  special  regime  to  indemnify  workers  over  57  years  of  age 
until retirement age in case of dismissal after a certain age. 

As regards  conventional compensation for  redundancy, the  Social Chamber  of the  Court 
of Cassation decided that the limitation of compensation for redundancy because of age 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
on  the  ground  that  an  employee  is  two  years  from  full  retirement  meets  the 
requirements of reasonableness and proportionality provided by the exception authorised 
by  Article  6  of  Directive  2000/78/EC  implemented  by  Article  L1133-1  of  the  Labour 
Code.220 

4.8  Public  security,  public  order,  criminal  offences,  protection  of  health, 
protection  of  the  rights  and  freedoms  of  others  (Article  2(5),  Directive 
2000/78) 

In France national law does not include exceptions that seek to rely on Article 2(5) of the 
Employment Equality Directive. 

4.9  Any other exceptions 

In  France  there  are  no  other  exceptions  to  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  (on  any 
ground) provided in national law. 

220  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, Banque Finaref, No. 09-42071, 17 November 2010. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5  POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Scope for positive action measures 

In France positive action in respect of disability and age is provided for in national law.  

French  positive  action,  as  conceived  by  the  jurisprudence  of  the  Conseil  d’Etat  is  based 
on  neutral  and  general  grounds  of  distinction  such  as  sex,  disability,  territorial  links  to 
designated  geographical  areas  or  socio-economic  considerations.221  France  does  not 
enforce such programmes in terms of ‘race’ or ethnic origin.  

In its opening provision, Law No. 2005-102 on equal opportunities and the integration of 
disabled persons affirms the right of disabled people to the support of all members of the 
nation and, in Article 11, the right to compensation for disability (Article L114-1 1 CSW).  

Article  1133-3  LC  states  that  positive  action  measures  taken  to  promote  equal 
opportunities for the benefit of disabled people are not to be construed as discrimination. 
Moreover, Article L1133-2 LC allows for differential treatment on the ground of age that 
is  objectively  and  reasonably  justified  by  a  legitimate  aim,  in  order  to  maintain  health, 
support  professional  integration  or  maintain  employment  of  workers,  if  the  means  to 
pursue these objectives are reasonable and necessary. 

In  addition,  there  are  a  number  of  integration  programmes  for  foreign  nationals  in 
France. 

b)  Main positive action measures in place on national level 

A-  Quota system 

1.  Quota for disabled people 

The  Law  on  the  Employment  of  Disabled  Persons  No.  87-157  instituted  a  quota 
system.222 Despite the cost to employers of sanctions related to the failure to meet their 
obligation  to  employ  a  quota  of  disabled  employees,  the  Court  of  Cassation  decided  in 
May  2003  that  disabled  workers  were  not  obliged  to  disclose  their  status  to  their 
employer.223 

Law No. 2005-102 on equal opportunities and the integration of disabled persons creates 
a  fund  for  the  integration  of  registered  disabled  people  into  both  private  and  public 
employment, as well as providing for sanctions if the employment quota of 6 % set out 
in the law is not respected (Article 36 creating Article 5212-12 LC). Article 36 of the law 
maintains  the  possibility  of  substituting  compliance  with  the  obligation  to  employ  a 
minimum  quota  of  6  %  of  disabled  salaried  workers  provided  by  Article  5212-2  LC  by 
making  a  financial  contribution  to  the  above-mentioned  fund  (known  as  AGEFIPH), 
which  finances  the  integration  of  disabled  workers.  Furthermore,  the  law  increases  the 
maximum  penalty  for  not  complying  with  the  quota  obligation  of  employing  6  %  of 
disabled  workers,  up  to  a  maximum  of  1  500  times  the  minimum  wage  in  total,  and 
creates  a  similar  obligation  for  the  public  sector  (see  Section  2.6  for  reasonable 
accommodation financing).  

2.  Quota for people over 50 

221  Conseil d’Etat (1996), ‘Public report No. 48’, pp. 86 and 91. 
222  France, Law No. 87-517 of 10 July 1987 in favour of employment of disabled people (Loi No. 87-517 du 10 

juillet 1987 en faveur de l'emploi des travailleurs handicaps), available at: 
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000512481 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

223  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, No. 1083, 06 May 2003, Revue de jurisprudence Sociale 8-9/03, p. 

733. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Decree No. 2009-560 of 20 May 2009224 imposing minimum quotas of employees over 50 
creates  Article  R138-25  ff.  of  the  Social  Security  Code  and  provides  that  businesses 
employing 50  people or more must  either be bound by branch collective agreements  to 
implement a contractually defined obligation of employment of older employees or must 
negotiate  an  agreement  or  engage  in  an  action  plan  in  favour  of  the  employment  of 
workers over 50 in order to meet their obligation in this regard.  

The  agreements  must  set  quantitative  objectives  and  employers  must  provide  the 
statutory  employees  representative,  such  as  the  ‘personnel  representative’  and  the 
‘Enterprise  Committee’,  with  reports  indicating  quantitative  annual  data  on  their  results 
with regard to these objectives, which are submitted to the collective bargaining unit and 
to labour authorities.  

They must cover the employment of older workers, their career development projections, 
improvement of working conditions and protection related to the physical burden of work, 
access  to  training  and  skills  development,  accommodation  of  working  conditions  at  the 
end  of  the  older  worker’s  career  and  transition  towards  retirement,  as  well  as  the 
development of tutorial and knowledge transfer programmes.  

Reports on these agreements must be submitted to departmental labour authorities. The 
sanction for not undertaking such an agreement and of not following its objectives is to 
pay a special retirement contribution amounting to 1 % of the total gross salaries of all 
employees paid by the employer.  

B- 

Broad social policy 

1. 

Disadvantaged suburbs 

In  a  context  of  significant  concentrations  of  people  of  foreign  descent  in  disadvantaged 
suburbs,  the  criteria  of  socio-economic  status  and  territorial  links  to  designated 
geographical  areas  mean  to  indirectly  target  discrimination  based  on  origin.  In  this 
context,  some  experts  regard  certain  recent  equal  opportunities  policies  as  promoting  a 
‘differentialist’ approach, leading to indirectly implementing quotas or targeting systems 
that  are  deliberately  designed  in  formally  neutral  terms  but  in  such  a  way  as  to  take 
account of the social reality of ‘origin’.225  

As a matter of fact, the policy focusing on disadvantaged suburbs (called ‘politique de la 
ville’),  concentrates  a  number  of  actions  targeting  communities  of  foreign  origin  which 
encourage integration and combat discrimination.  

The  major  instruments  of  this  policy  are  municipality  contracts  (‘contrats  de  ville’), 
including  thematic  agreements  addressing  issues  of  discrimination,  Major  City  Projects 
(Grands  Projets  de  Ville,  GPV),  Urban  Stimulation  Zones  (Zones  de  redynamisation 
urbaine, ZRU) and Priority Education Zones (Zones d’éducation prioritaires, ZEP).  

224  France, Decree No. 2009-560 of 20 May 2009 relating to the content and the validation od conventions and 

actions plans in favour of employment of old workers (Décret No. 2009-560 du 20 mai 2009 relatif au 
contenu et à la validation des accords et des plans d'action en faveur de l'emploi des salariés âgés), 
available at: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/decret/2009/5/20/ECED0901854D/jo/texte (accessed 6 
September 2016). 

225  Maisonneuve, M. (2002), Les discriminations positives ethniques ou raciales en droit public interne: vers la 

fin de la discrimination positive à la française (Positive ethnic and racial discrimination in public law: towards 
an end to French positive action), AFDA, p. 561. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
C- 

Preferential treatment narrowly tailored 

1. 

Integration measures for school attendance by migrant and Traveller children 

The  Ministry  of  Education  has  issued  several  directives  in  order  to  facilitate  school 
attendance  by  Traveller  children:  Ministerial  instruction  (Ministerial  instruction  No.  91-
220 of 30 July 1991) instructed school principals to admit children to classes, even for a 
few days, without requirements for formal registration with the municipal authorities. In 
2002,  the  Ministry  of  Education  rationalised  and  put  in  place  a  formal  notice  instructing 
all  education  authorities  and  school  principals  as  to  the  organisation  of  support  for  the 
education  of  Roma  children  (Ministerial  instruction  No.  2002-101  of  25  April  2002).226 
Ministerial  instruction  2002-102  creates  a  coordinating  training  and  documentation 
structure at the rectorate level (local administrative unit of national education), called the 
CASNAV,227  which  is  supposed  to  provide  support  to  integration  classes  and  local 
initiatives.  In  total  34  such  centres  coordinate  104  local  networks.  Their  effectiveness 
depends on political orientation at the local level.  

Ministerial  instruction  No.  2012-142  of  2  October  2012  regarding  School  Integration  of 
Traveller  Children  reiterates  the  duty  to  integrate  the  children  of  foreign  nationals, 
Travellers  and  Roma,  regardless  of  their  nationality,  conditions  of  housing  and  official 
status in France.228 This instruction was completed by another instruction  (circulaire No. 
2012-143  of  2-10-2012  BOEN  special  No.  37  of  11  October  2012)  providing  for  the 
generalisation of the CASNAV scheme to all rectorates. In order to facilitate integration, 
children can register for school attendance directly with the CASNAV.229  

2. 

Integration measures for migrants 

Upon arrival in France documented foreign nationals are enter a programme for a period 
of  five  years  in  order  to  facilitate  their  integration  through  personalised  social  support, 
French  language  classes  and  training  for  economic  integration.  This  programme  is 
implemented by local authorities under the supervision of a directorate of the Ministry of 
the Interior called the DAAEN230 with the support of the OFII231 which is the financial and 
executive operator of this policy.  

226  France, Ministerial Instruction No. 2002-101 of 25 April 2002 relating to school integration of Traveller 

children (circulaire no 2002-101 du 25 avril 2002 scolarisation des enfants du voyage et de familles non 
sédentaires) available at: http://www.education.gouv.fr/botexte/sp10020425/MENE0201120C.htm%20 
(accessed 6 September 2016). 

227  Centres for the promotion of school attendance by non-French-speaking children who have recently arrived 

in France and Traveller children (Centre académique pour la scolarisation des enfants allophones 
nouvellement arrivés et des enfants issus de familles itinérantes et de voyageurs, CASNAV): Ministerial 
Instruction No. 2012-143 of 2 October 2012 relating to the organisation of CASNAV (circulaire no 2012-143 
du 2 octobre 2012 relative à l’organisation des CASNAV), available at: 
http://www.education.gouv.fr/pid25535/bulletin_officiel.html?cid_bo=61527 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

228  On educational integration of newly arrived non-French speaking children see Ministerial Instruction no 
2012-141 of 2 October 2012 relating to the school intergration of newly arrived non–French speaking 
children,(circulaire no 2012-141 du 2 octobre 2012 relative à la scolarisatin des élèves allophones 
nouvellement arrivés) http://www.education.gouv.fr/pid25535/bulletin_officiel.html?cid_bo=61536 
(accessed 6 September 2016); Ministerial Instruction No. 2012-142 of 2 October 2012 relating to the 
schooling of children from Traveller families and families without residence (Circulaire no 2012-142 du 2 
octobre 2012, REDE 236611C. RED-DEGESCO A1-1 relative à la scolarisation de enfants issus de familles 
itinérantes et de voyageurs), available at: 
http://www.education.gouv.fr/pid25535/bulletin_officiel.html?cid_bo=61529 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

229  France, Ministerial Instruction No. 2012-143 of 2 October 2012 relating to the organisation of CASNAV. 
230  Directorate for Support, Integration and Access to Citizenship for Foreign Nationals (Direction de l’accueil, 

de l’accompagnement des étrangers et de la nationalité). 

231  French Office of Immigration and Integration (Office français de l’immigration et de l’intégration). 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6  REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT  

6.1  Judicial  and/or  administrative  procedures  (Article  7  Directive  2000/43, 

Article 9 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Available procedures for enforcing the principle of equal treatment 

In  France  the  following  procedures  exist  for  enforcing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment 
(judicial, administrative and alternative dispute resolution such as mediation).  

There are judicial and non-judicial means of legal action in France.  

Administrative procedure for disabled people’s rights access  

Article  64  of  the  Law  No.  2005-102  on  equal  opportunities  and  the  integration  of 
disabled  persons  creates  a  Departmental  Centre  (Maison  départementale)  for  people 
with disabilities that is intended to centralise all administrative procedures  for enforcing 
the  rights  of  disabled  people.  It  further  creates  a  claim  reference  person  within  these 
Departmental  Centres  (Article  146-13  CSW),  who  will  transmit  the  disabled  person’s 
claim  to  the  competent  authority  or  jurisdiction.  The  decree  establishing  these 
Departmental Centres was adopted on 19 December 2005 (Decree No. 2005-1587).232 

Non-judicial means of intervention 

Both private and public employers  can initiate a non-judicial in-house inquiry if a victim 
of harassment brings to their attention, or if they suspect, an incidence of discrimination, 
as they must guarantee a working environment free of such practices.  

Staff  representatives,  the  human  resources  manager  or  work  councils  (Comité 
d’entreprise)  also  have  the  power  to  request  social  dialogue  on  the  integration  of 
disabled  workers  (L2241-5,  L2242-13  and  L2242-14  of  the  Labour  Code  (LC)),  and 
working conditions (L2241-3 and L2241-44 LC).  

Labour  Inspectors  have  reinforced  investigation  powers.  They  can  enter  all  premises 
(Article  L8113-5  LC),  obtain  communication  of  any  document  or  information  providing 
evidence  of  the  facts,  whether  on  paper,  computerized  support  or  other  (L8113-4.  LC). 
They  may  also  draft  a  contravention  report  certifying  their  observations  (L8113-7  LC) 
and submit this report to the Public Prosecutor (Article 40 Code of Penal Procedure, CPP). 

With  regard  to  mediation,  Articles  21  and  131  of  the  New  Code  of  Civil  Procedure 
expressly  refer  to  the  duty  of  the  judge  to  favour  mediation  and  to  designate  a  third 
party mediator upon obtaining the consent of the parties to that end. Conciliation is the 
first  stage  of  any  legal  action  before  the  Employment  Tribunal  in  application  of  Article 
L1423-13 LC. The labour inspector (L611-1 ff.) can also initiate these non-judicial means 
of action.  

Article  6  quinquies  of  Law  No.  83-634  sets  out  the  principle  of  disciplinary  sanction 
against any public servant committing discriminatory actions. 

With  respect  to  claims  against  the  public  service,  mediation  can  be  pursued  by  the 
Defender of Rights (Défenseur des droits) or one of the many mediators put in place by 
specific  public  services  relating  to  social  protection,  education,  public  transport,  the 

232  France, Decree No. 2005-1587 of 19 December 2005 relating to the creating of the departmental centre for 

disabled people (Décret No. 2005-1587 du 19 décembre 2005 relatif à la maison départementale des 
personnes handicapées),available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/decret/2005/12/19/SANA0524615D/jo (accessed 6 September 2016). 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
postal  service,  finance  etc.  This  mediation  is  pursued  without  prejudice  to  the 
administrative legal action, which must be pursued independently.  

In addition, the Defender of Rights, the French equality body, can investigate any claim 
alleging  discrimination  on  any  ground  covered  by  French  law  and  present  observations 
before a judge, as amicus curiae (see Section 7). However, its decisions are not binding. 

Legal actions against private parties 

Legal actions may be brought before the Employment Tribunal (Conseil de Prud’hommes) 
in  matters  related  to  employment,  private-sector  salaried  employees  or  contractual 
public agents of an industrial or commercial public service.  

In cases of discrimination in employment, Article L1133-3 LC provides for action seeking 
damages  as  well  as  the  possibility  of  requesting  the  annulment  of  a  discriminatory 
measure before theEmployment Tribunal.  

The right of alert of the employees’ representative in case of violations of human rights 
and  freedoms  in  the  workplace,  stipulated  in  Article  L2313-2  LC,  entitles  the 
representative to file an emergency petition for injunctive relief before the  Employment 
Tribunaland applies to cases of discrimination.233  

It is important to note that on 12 December 2006 the Court of Cassation decided that the 
labour courts had jurisdiction over pre-contractual matters and were competent in cases 
related to access to employment and apprenticeship.234 Moreover, the Court of Cassation 
decided  to  establish  a  specialised  chamber  of  the  Social  Chamber  to  deal  with  the 
enforcement of anti-discrimination law in labour cases and chose anti-discrimination law 
as the topic for its annual thematic report on law enforcement in 2008.  

Legal  actions  may  also  be  brought  before  the  district  court  (tribunal  d’instance)  or 
regional  court  (tribunal  de  grande  instance)  depending  on  the  amounts  involved  or 
claimed (in cases relating to all other matters such as  housing and access to goods and 
services). 

Criminal procedure 

Pursuant to Article 28 of the Organic Law (loi organique) of 29 March 2011 creating the 
Defender of Rights, under the supervision of the public prosecutor the Defender of Rights 
can negotiate a settlement. 

Articles  121-1  and  121-2  PC  establish  the  criminal  responsibility  of  physical  and  legal 
persons.  Article  225-2  PC,  in  the  case  of  a  private  party,  and  Article  432-7  PC,  in  the 
case of a public servant or public authority, provide for a criminal complaint filed with the 
police or public prosecutor. The prosecution acts based on police enquiries (Article 15-3 
CPP) after the victim’s complaint or further to notice given by any public servant (Article 
40 CPP). Victims and NGOs can also directly notify the public prosecutor. It is the public 
prosecutor which decides, further to its enquiries, whether to prosecute or not. A private 
party and the Defender of Rights, if the respondent refuses a settlement, can also initiate 
proceedings  by  way  of  direct  citation  (citation  direct)  but  then  they  carry  the  entire 
burden of proof.  

233  Court of Cassation Social Chamber, 26 May 1999, Bull. Civ. V No. 238. 
234  Court of Cassation Social Chamber, No. 06-40662, 06-40799 and 06-40.864, 20 December 2006. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Legal action against the state or a public service 

All  claims  against  public  services,  in  matters  related  to  the  employment  of  public 
servants  ((Article  6  et.  s.  of  Law  No.  83-634)  and  to  access  to  public  services  (such  as 
access  to  school  and  social  rights)  must  be  brought  before  the  administrative  courts, 
whether  they  relate  to  the  application  of  Law  No.  2008-496  completing  the 
implementation of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC in all matters dealing with the 
public  services  including  education,  or  rely  on  general  principles  of  administrative  law 
which  also  provide  legal  redress  against  discrimination.  The  administrative  court  may 
correct the situation and/or award damages.  

Concerning legal action to obtain an order for desegregation of a school, such action has 
never  been  initiated.  In  two  cases  where  specific  segregated  classrooms  were 
implemented for a few weeks before the evacuation of campsites, in order to satisfy the 
legal  obligations  of  access  to  school  for  Roma  children,  the  mayor  was  prosecuted  in  a 
criminal court in application of  Article 226-2 PC, and before the administrative court  for 
illegal action, since segregation is forbidden by law.  

Mechanisms to support access to justice 

Since  1996,  France  has  put  in  place  a  national  network  of  Points  of  access  to  rights 
(points  d’accès  au  droit),  offering  legal  expertise  and  free  legal  consultations.  The 
network  is  managed  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  implemented  through  the 
Departmental Commission on Access to Rights under the supervision of the President of 
the First Instance District Court.  

Law  No.  2005-102  on  equal  opportunities  and  the  integration  of  disabled  persons 
recognises  the  right  of  people  with  impaired  hearing  to  a  sign  language  interpreter 
before  the  civil  and  criminal  courts,  and  the  right  of  the  visually  impaired  to  the 
provision  in  Braille  of  civil  and  criminal  court  records  (Article  76),  all  these  measures 
being provided at the cost of the state.  

Public  buildings  and  courts  must  be  accessible  to  the  public  (Article  L111-7  of  the 
Construction  and  Housing  Code)  unless  they  have  obtained  special  authorisation  from 
the  prefect  (Ministerial  Instruction  No.  94-55  of  7  July  1994,  R111.19.3  CCH. 
Construction  and  Housing  Code).  Article  L152-4  of  the  Construction  and  Housing  Code 
foresees enforcement of this principle through criminal fines and injunctive relief.  

b) 

Barriers and other deterrents faced by litigants seeking redress 

Legal expertise 

Litigants seeking redress are faced with a number of barriers, whether they result from 
their situation or from insufficient legal expertise on the part of judicial actors. The main 
problems they experience are insufficient legal expertise on the part of NGOs supporting 
people in situations of great social and financial distress and anti-discrimination NGOs in 
general,  non-specific  legal  action  regarding  access  to  goods  and  services,  insufficient 
legal  skills  of  legal  actors  regarding  the  implementation  of  the  burden  of  proof,  the 
complexity  of  the  statute  of  limitations  regarding  actions  in  matters  related  to 
employment, the preliminary requirements before enforcing rights against the state, the 
inadequate  resources  of  the  labour  inspectorate,  the  penal  reflex  of  victims  who  seek 
redress before the criminal courts and conditions of access to litigation.  

As regards access to redress for Travellers, if a municipality fails to put in place specific 
parking  sites  for  the  travelling  population,  it  is  barred  from  seeking  removal  of  the 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Travellers’  trailers  and  from  prohibiting  parking235  and  can  be  challenged  for  this  failure 
before  the  administrative  courts.  However,  these  are  very  technical  remedies,  which 
require the assistance of a lawyer and Travellers and Roma communities find it difficult to 
access legal aid due to the complexity of the administrative requirements.  

Absence of a specific means of legal action 

There are no specific legal actions or  sanctions in matters related to education, housing 
or goods and services in general. For instance, in case of harassment in education related 
to  internship  programmes  with  a  private  employer,  no  specific  means  of  legal  action  is 
available.  Claimants  must  put  their  claim  before  the  civil  courts  or,  if  they  wish  to 
challenge  the  state  in  cases  relating  to  public  housing  and  state  education,  they  must 
apply to the administrative court like any other claimant. 

Regarding the prohibition of police forces to perform racial profiling in police controls, The 
Court of Appeal of Paris decided on 24 June 2015 that, given the obligation of the  state 
to insure access to judicial redress, in the absence of formal judicial procedures and of a 
procedure  keeping  evidence  of  police  controls  performed,  and  in  a  context  where  racial 
profiling is widely practiced, civil action in damages against the state can take advantage 
of  the  shift  in  the  burden  of  proof.  Therefore,  if  the  claimant  establishes  by  way  of  a 
witness  statement  that  differential  treatment  was  operated  in  the  selection  of  persons 
subjected  to  police  controls,  then  the  police  forces  has  the  burden  of  justifying  the 
relevance of the control. The state has presented a request before the Court of Cassation 
to quash this decision.236 

Shift in the burden of proof 

Legal  actions  relating  to  discrimination  which  come  before  the  civil  courts  benefit  from 
the shift in the burden of proof, as established by explicit statute (Law of 16 November 
2001,  Law  of  17  January  2002  and  Law  No.  2008-496)  (see  Section  6.3)  but  remain 
difficult  to  enforce.  The  judicial  tradition  is  to  go  to  a  civil  court  with  the  elements  of 
evidence  readily  available  to  the  party,  which  explains  why  claimants  often  go  to  the 
criminal  courts  to  obtain  access  to  evidence.  In  addition, in  cases  of  discrimination,  the 
evidence is very often in the hands  of the defendant and not accessible to  the claimant 
without  intervention  by  a  judge.  Moreover,  in  France,  making  copies  of  documents 
belonging  to  the  employer  is  considered  theft.  The  rules  of  civil  procedure  make  access 
to  evidence  in  the  hands  of  the  other  party  or  a  third  party,  by  way  of  what  is  called 
‘investigative measures’ (mesure d’instruction), very difficult, as this is considered as an 
exceptional measure and is conditional upon having already  provided sufficient evidence 
to  the  court.  It  is  not  in  the  legal  culture  of  judicial  actors,  judges  and  lawyers  to  use 
these procedural means of access to evidence, as the judge in civil matters is seen as not 
inquisitorial and not part of the process leading to the introduction of evidence before the 
court.  

Complexity of statute of limitations for instituting legal action in employment matters 

In  2005  the  Court  of  Cassation  decided  that  discrimination  claims  related  to  the 
execution of a contract were subject to a statute of limitations of 30 years (Article 2262 
CC).237 A major reform of all statutes of limitations was adopted by Law No. 2008-561 of 

235  High Judicial Court of  Montauban, No. 02/00171, 3 May 2002, available at: 

http://www.rajf.org/article/php3?id_article=1043 (accessed 6 September 2016).  

236  Paris Court of Appeal, civil chamber, No. 348 – 13/24286, No. 347, 13/24284, No. 346, 13/24277, No.345, 

13/24274, No.344, 13/24269, No.343, 13/24267, No.342, 13/24265, No. 341, 13/24262, No. 340, 
13/24261, No. 351, 13/24303, No. 350, 13/24300, No. 349, 13/24299, No. 339, 13/2425524 June 2015,  
available at: http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/fr/actions/protection-des-droits-libertes/decision/decision-
msp-mds-mld-2015-021-du-3-fevrier-2015, (accessed 6 September 2016). 

237  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, Renault v. Morange, No. - 02-43.616, 15 March 2005, Dictionnaire 

permanent Social (Dictionary of Social welfare law), 4114, Bulletin 814. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
17  June  2008,238  reducing  the  time  limit  for  instituting  any  personal  and  moveable 
property actions to five years (Article 2224 Civil Code).  

Moreover,  further  to  complaints  and  lobbying  on  the  part  of  employers  as  to  the 
unmanageable  scope  of  their  risk,  the  statute  of  limitations  for  instituting  an  action  in 
discrimination  before  the  labour  courts  was  lowered  to  five  years,  as  is  the  case  for 
claims  relating  to  salaries  (Article  L1134-5  of  the  Labour  Code).  This  reform  entails  an 
important regression in the scope of protection against discrimination. Article L1134-5 LC 
provides:  

‘any  action  in  compensation  of  damages  resulting  from  discrimination  shall  lapse 
after five years from the incidence of discrimination becoming known.’ 

‘Compensation  covers  the  damages  in  their  entirety  resulting  from  the  whole 
duration of the discrimination.’ 

The  Court  of  Cassation  decided  that  prescription  had  no  impact  on  the  relevance  of 
comparative evidence going beyond the prescribed period.239 It has further decided that 
the concept of ‘the discrimination becoming known’ in Article 1134-5 of the Labour Code 
meant that the statute of limitations starts only when the victim has exact knowledge of 
the necessary comparative elements and their evidence.240 The only time limit therefore 
results  from  another  rule,  provided  in  Article  2232  of  the  Civil  Code,  which  limits  the 
suspension of prescription by ‘ignorance’ of the facts, in all cases, to 20 years.  

The criminal courts are competent in matters related to hiring, sanctions and dismissals 
in  the  workplace,  access  to  goods  and  services  (including  all  public  services  such  as 
public  housing,  education,  social  rights  etc.).  They  may  impose  criminal  sanctions  (i.e. 
fines, prison, loss of civil rights) and damages if the claimant has lodged a civil complaint 
before the criminal court. The time limits for the prosecution of discrimination through a 
criminal action are three years (Article 8 CPP). 

Preliminary requirements for enforcing rights against the state 

However,  under  all  legislation  governing  civil  servants,  the  time  limit  for  presenting  a 
claim to challenge a decision taken by a public employer must be preceded by a written 
request to have the decision reconsidered. This must be submitted within two months of 
the dismissal and followed by a formal administrative legal petition filed not earlier than 
two months after this written request. The claim for damages against the state must also 
be preceded by a written request which is not subject to a statute of limitations, but the 
administrative  legal  action  must  be  filed  not  earlier  than  two  months  after  the  written 
request. 

Insufficient resources of the Labour Inspectorate 

The limited numbers of labour inspectors, who have the burden of pursuing all violations 
of the Labour Code, reduces the efficiency of this body, whose members are entirely free 
to choose the situations they investigate. In addition, their investigations lead exclusively 
to  criminal  claims  and  they  do  not  transmit  the  results  of  their  investigations  to  the 
parties or to the civil judge.  

238  France, Law No. 2008-561 of 17 June 2008 reforming the civil statute of limitations (Loi No. 2008-561 du 

17 juin 2008 portant réforme de la prescription en matière civile), available at : 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000019013696 (accessed 6 September 
2016).  

239  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, No 07-42697, 4 February 2009. 
240  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, No. 05-45163, 22 July 2007. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The tendency of victims to file criminal complaints 

The main reason so many people resort to the criminal courts is that it gives them access 
to  evidence  through  the  judge’s  investigation.  In  addition,  in  the  context  of  criminal 
claims, they do not have to get involved or need a lawyer; the prosecution takes charge 
of  the  investigation  and  the  prosecution.  The  public  prosecutor  nevertheless  has  the 
choice to investigate and pursue the matter  or not in the name  of the state. For a long 
period, very few discrimination complaints were prosecuted.  

Since 2007, the Ministry of Justice has put in place a policy of specialisation, instituting a 
dedicated  service  to  treat  discrimination-related  criminal  complaints  at  the  public 
prosecutor’s  office  with  the  objective  of  increasing  the  rate  of  criminal  prosecutions. 
However,  the  requirements  of  evidence  in  criminal  matters  lead  to  few  decisions  being 
issued in favour of the claimant, despite the significant number of complaints.  

Conditions of access to litigation 

Representation by a lawyer is not mandatory before the labour courts, the district courts 
and  the  criminal  courts,  or  before  the  appeals  court  when  appealing  from  the  latter 
jurisdictions.  Representation  by  a  lawyer  is  mandatory  before  the  regional  courts,  the 
commercial courts (Law No. 71-1130 of 31 December 1974),241 the administrative courts 
(regulation of 4 May 2000) and the Court of Cassation (Article 974 ff. of the New Code of 
Civil Procedure, NCCP).  

Legal aid is available to individuals on low incomes (Law No. 91-647 of July 1991 on legal 
aid.242 

Since  the  equality  body  cannot  initiate  judicial  proceedings,  victims  have  the  burden  of 
instituting action and finding financing for their own litigation costs. 

c) 

Number of discrimination cases brought to justice 

In  France  there  are  no  available  statistics  on  the  number  of  cases  related  to 
discrimination brought to justice. 

Any  quantitative  study  involves  going  to  each  district  and  evaluating  the  archives.  In 
addition,  the  only  statistics  available  concern  convictions  based  on  Article  225-2  of  the 
Penal Code and relate  only to  convictions registered in the individual’s  criminal records. 
Therefore  there  are  no  statistics  concerning  the  number  of  complaints  lodged  or  the 
treatment they receive. Since 1998, the statistics show an average of 10 convictions per 
year for an approximate number of complaints evaluated at about 7 000 per year. 

d) 

Registration of discrimination cases by national courts 

In France discrimination cases are not registered as such by national courts.  

241  France, Law No. 71-1130 of 31 December 1971 reforming certain judicial professions (Loi No. 71-1130 du 

31 décembre 1971 portant réforme de certaines professions judiciaires et juridiques). Available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006068396 (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

242  France, Law No. 91-647 of 10 July 1991 relating to legal aid (Loi No. 91-647 du 10 juillet 1991 relative à 

l'aide juridique), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006077779 (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.2  Legal  standing  and  associations  (Article  7(2)  Directive  2000/43,  Article 

9(2) Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Engaging on behalf of victims of discrimination (representing them) 

In  France  associations,  organisations  and  trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  on  behalf  of 
victims of discrimination. 

In France all trade unions are legally constituted with the status of associations. The Law 
of  16  November  2001  provides  the  possibility  to  all  representative  trade  unions  and 
NGOs which have been in existence for over five years to act on behalf or in support of 
victims  of  discrimination  (Article  2,  Code  of  Penal  Procedure).  They  can  act  for  the 
claimant  in  actions  for  any  apprentice,  trainee,  job  applicant  or  employee  who  alleges 
that they have been a victim of discrimination (Article L1132-1 LC ff., Law No. 83-634 of 
13 July 1983 in the public sector Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 2). 

However, they have no legal duty to act. 

b) 

Engaging in support of victims of discrimination 

In  France  associations,  organisations  and  trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  in  support  of 
victims of discrimination. 

In  France  trade  unions  are  legally  constituted  with  the  status  of  associations.  Trade 
unions and NGOs can act in support and on behalf of victims of discrimination before any 
jurisdiction:  Article  R779-9  of  the  Code  of  Administrative  Justice,  Article  3  of  the  New 
Code of Civil Procedure, Article 2, Code of Penal Procedure; Articles L1134-2 and L1134-3 
of  the  Labour  Code,  Law  No.  83-634  of  13  July  1983  in  the  public  sector  Article  8, 
paragraphs 1 and 2).  

Article  33  of  the  Organic  Law  (loi  organique)  creating  the  Defender  of  Rights  also 
provides that the Defender can present observations in any case before any jurisdiction. 

In  addition,  the  Law  of  16  November  2001  provides  the  possibility  to  all  representative 
trade unions and NGOs which have been in existence for over five years to act on behalf 
of  victims  of  discrimination  (Article  2,  Code  of  Penal  Procedure).  They  can  intervene  in 
the  action  for  any  apprentice,  trainee,  job  applicant  or  employee  who  alleges  that  they 
have  been  a  victim  of  discrimination  (Article  L1132-1  LC ff.,  Law  No.  83-634  of  13  July 
1983  in  the  public  sector  Article  8,  paragraphs  1  and  2).  Finally,  the  Labour  Code  was 
amended  by  Law  No.  2005-102  on  equal  opportunities  and  the  integration  of  disabled 
persons,  Article  L1134-2  was  created  in  order  to  provide  standing  to  trade  unions  and 
Article  L1134-3  to  provide  standing  to  NGOs  acting  to  uphold  the  rights  of  disabled 
people to intervene before the courts in matters of discrimination. 

c) 

Actio popularis 

In France Law No. 2001-1006 allows associations, organisations and trade unions to act 
in  the  public  interest  on  their  own  behalf,  without  a  specific  victim  to  support  or 
represent. 

The standing of any person who has a legitimate interest in the dismissal or granting of 
the action in all civil cases pursuant to Article 31 NCCP and Article R779-9 of the Code of 
Administrative  Justice  has  been  created  in  order  to  award  standing  to  NGOs  when  they 
established  that  the  facts  at  issue  violated  the  collective  interest  they  represented  as 
declared in their constituting associative purpose pursuant to the Law of 1 July 1901.243  

243  Civ. 2e, 21 July 1986: Bull. Civ.II, No. 119. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
d) 

Class action 

In France national law does not allow associations, organisations or trade unions to act in 
the interest of more than one individual victim (class action) for claims arising from the 
same event except in matters related to access to housing as provided by Article 163 of 
Law no 2002-73. 

However,  following  a  number  of  initiatives  on  the  part  of  Members  of  Parliament  that 
have never been taken up by the Government, the Prime Minister announced that a bill 
would be presented to  create a  class action procedure for victims of  discrimination. The 
bill was passed before the Senate in first reading on 5 November 2015 and is scheduled 
to be voted in first reading by the National Assembly in May 2016.244 The provision has 
been  conceived  as  a  tool  to  impose  change  in  future  practice.  A  class  action  will  be 
preceded  by  a  written  request  that  must  give  rise  to  a  six  months  period  of  mediation. 
This  action  will  be  a  request  for  cessation  of  discrimination,  without  compensatory 
damages  for  the  past.  The  action  will  be  exclusively  initiated  by  trade  unions  for 
discrimination in the work place, and NGOs for discrimination outside employment.  

6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78) 

In France national law requires a shift of the burden of proof from the complainant to the 
respondent.  

The shift in the burden of proof has expressly been transposed in all matters that concern 
Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC by Law No. 2008-496 at Article 4 and Article 158 
of the Law of 17 January 2002 in matters of housing (modifying Article 1, paragraph 3 of 
Law no 89-462 of 6 July 1989). 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The  claimant  must  present  facts  leading  to  a  presumption  of  direct  or  indirect 
discrimination.  
Having satisfied this  requirement, the defendant must establish that  their decision 
was  justified  by  objective  elements,  which  have  nothing  to  do  with  discrimination. 
It  does  not  require  that  the  defendant  justify  proportionality  and  necessity.  Since 
this requirement is not intrinsically included in the definition of direct discrimination 
in  Article  7,  the  burden  of  proof  ends  up  being  lighter  for  defendant  in  direct 
discrimination  cases  than  in  indirect  discrimination  cases.  This  does  not  appear  to 
comply with the requirements of the directive. 
The  judge  forms  an  opinion  after  having  ordered,  if  necessary,  any  investigative 
measures they consider useful. 
The claimant never has to establish that they are a member of a group targeted by 
the discrimination ground. Only the behaviour of the defendant is considered. 

This shift in the burden of proof is thus applicable in all non-criminal legal actions (in the 
case of self-employed workers and the liberal professions, private and public employees, 
access to goods and services in the private and public sector and claims against services 
provided by the state).  

For claims relating to the public sector that are brought before the administrative court, 
the administrative procedure is inquisitorial and is covered by the derogation provided in 
Article 8(5) of Directive 2000/43/EC and Article 10(5) of Directive 2000/78/EC.  

Article R411-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice provides that ‘the procedure alleges 
the  facts,  arguments  and  conclusions  submitted  to  the  judge’.  Thus,  the  claimant  is 
deemed  not  to  have  the  burden  of  proof.  However,  in  a  plenary  decision,  the  Conseil 

244  See: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/dossiers/justice_21e_siecle.asp.  

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
d’Etat  has  spelled  out  indications  to  lower  administrative  courts  as  regards  the 
implementation of the burden of proof in discrimination cases:  

‘while it is for the claimant to submit to the judge elements of facts that could lead 
the  judge  to  presume  a  violation  of  the  principle  of  non-discrimination,  the 
respondent  must  adduce  in  evidence  any  elements  that  could  justify  that  the 
decision  challenged  is  based  on  objective  elements  devoid  of  discriminatory 
objectives.  The  decision  of  the  judge  is  based  on  this  exchange  of  contradictory 
elements. In case of doubt, the judge must complete the investigation by ordering 
any  investigatory  measure  (or  the  filing  of  any  element)  that  they  deem 
necessary.’245 

In  fact,  this  definition  of  the  shift  in  the  burden  of  proof  is  very  close  to  the  definition 
implemented in Article L1134-1 of the Labour Code. 

6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) 

In France there are legal measures of protection against victimisation. 

Article  3  of  Law  No.  2008-496  of  27  May  2008  established  a  specific  protection  against 
victimisation applicable to the entire scope of civil legal actions alleging direct or indirect 
discrimination covered by the directives, which provides that no person, having testified 
in  good  faith  about  discriminatory  behaviour,  can  be  treated  unfavourably  on  such  a 
ground.  No  decision  can  be  taken  against  a  person  because  they  were  a  victim  of 
discrimination  or  because  of  their  refusal  to  submit  to  discrimination  as  prohibited  in 
Article 2.  

This  protection  clarifies  that  it  extends  to  victims  and  non-victims  but  does  not  provide 
any indication as to the burden of proof applicable to claims of victimisation and does not 
assimilate victimisation with discrimination. 

Finally,  the  Penal  Code  protects  victims  and  witnesses.  Article  434-15  PC  sanctions 
threats and intimidation towards a witness, and Article 434-5 PC towards a victim, with a 
maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.  

It  is  important  to  note  that,  in  reaction  to  actions  relating  to  discrimination  and  sexual 
harassment,  there  has  been  an  ever-growing  defence  strategy  leading  to  the  filing  of 
criminal  complaints  for  slanderous  complaint  (226-10  PC)  in  order  to  intimidate 
complainants. These have sometimes given rise to investigation.  

As  for  other  grounds  of  criminal  complaints,  there  are  no  statistics  or  studies  as  to  the 
number of such complaints and their results, since they are integrated in global statistics 
relating to slanderous complaints. 

6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) 

- 

Applicable sanctions in cases of discrimination – in law and in practice 

There are damages but there are no punitive sanctions in non-criminal cases. 

The Perben  II Law  on adapting justice to developments in criminality was adopted  on  9 
March  2004.246  Criminal  sanctions  incurred  in  relation  to  the  criminal  offence  of 

245  Conseil d’Etat, No. 298348, 30 October 2009. 
246  France, Law No. 2004-204 of 9 March 2004, adapting justice to developments in criminality (Loi No. 2004-

204 du 9 mars 2004 portant adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité), available at: 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
discrimination  are  increased  to  a  maximum  of  three  years’  imprisonment  and  a  EUR  45 
000 fine (Article 225-2 PC).  

The Penal Code creates an aggravating factor in relation to a discriminatory refusal to sell 
or allow access to a public place (nightclubs, shops, public services etc.), sanctioned by a 
maximum of five years’ imprisonment and a EUR 75 000 fine. In addition, the Penal Code 
allows accessory sanctions in Article 225-19 PC: posting or publication of the judgment, 
closing  down  of  a  public  place,  exclusion  from  procurement  contracts,  confiscation  of  a 
business,  suspension  of  civil  rights  and  a  list  of  further  penalties  that  are  seldom 
imposed.  The  same  sentence  is  applicable  in  cases  of  discrimination  by  public  services 
(Article 432-7 PC).  

Legal  persons,  including  the  state  and  all  public  services,  can  also  be  convicted  by  the 
criminal court, and this liability does not exclude that of the physical person. 

In non-criminal matters only compensatory remedies can be sought before the civil and 
administrative courts. 

In  cases  involving  the  public  services,  legal  actions  must  be  brought  before  an 
administrative  court.  Two  courses  of  action  are  available:  one  for  excess  of  power  to 
annul the decision  challenged  or the full jurisdiction petition, in order  to obtain not only 
annulment of the decision but damages as well.  

In addition to criminal and administrative legal actions, a civil servant can also be subject 
to disciplinary sanctions in application of Article 66 of Law No. 84-16 of 11 January 1984, 
Article  89  of  Law  No.  84-53  of  26  January  1984  and  Article  81  of  Law  No.86-33  of  9 
January 1986.  

Before theEmployment Tribunal, the claimant may seek compensation and annulment of 
the discriminatory measure, thereby requesting reintegration in case of dismissal (Article 
L1132-4, Labour Code). 

- 

Ceiling and amount of compensation 

There is no ceiling on the amount of compensation. 

There  is  no  statutory  upper  limit  but  French  legal  practice  is  still  very  conservative  in 
calculating  pecuniary  loss,  and  amounts  awarded  remain  rather  low  and  depend  on  the 
evidence adduced.  

The first civil case against a private real estate agent was successfully brought before the 
civil courts in 2008, before the Montpellier district court (tribunal d’instance).  

The  court awarded  EUR 3 000 in non-pecuniary damages, stating for  the first time that 
suffering  discrimination  deserved  specific  compensation  for  non-pecuniary  damages, 
which  ought  to  be  significant.247  Since  then,  it  has  been  observed  that,  when  the 
claimant  fails  to  quantify  financial  loss  through  concrete  evidence,  in  situations  such  as 
discrimination in access to employment, or loss of business  due to failure to gain access 
to the court building, in 2010 the courts awarded EUR 20 000 in non-pecuniary damages, 
an  award  that  stands  as  a  substitute  in  the  face  of  difficulties  in  establishing  damages 
(Airbus case, see above, and Bleitrach case, see above). 

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006068396 (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

247  District Court of Montpellier, Drucker v. Galerie Gregoire RG, No. 11-07-001540, 3 April 2008. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
However,  the  court  often  awards  no  moral  damage,  expressly  stating  the  lack  of 
evidence from the claimant. 

In  matters  related  to  access  to  goods  and  services,  cases  are  so  rare  and  remedies  so 
low that they cannot be considered to be effective and dissuasive. 

In employment-related  cases, however, compensation is more  significant.  Nevertheless, 
while it compensates the claimant’s losses, enforcement of the non-discrimination rule is 
not  widespread  and  cases  are  isolated.  Therefore,  judicial  convictions  are  not  yet 
effective and dissuasive. 

- 

Assessment of the sanctions 

There is no punitive sanction in civil matters. 

Criminal  sanctions  represent  about  five  to  10  cases  a  year.  Given  that  they  occur  in 
matters related to goods and services with little evidence of significant damages, despite 
provisions  of  the  law  which  allow  for  fines  ranging  up  to  EUR  45 000  and  three  years’ 
imprisonment, the criminal sanctions awarded by the courts are very low, ranging from a 
few  hundred  to  a  few  thousand  Euros.  They  can  be  accompanied  by  suspended  prison 
sentences.  In  a  2007  decision  relating  to  a  denial  of  access  to  a  hotel  for  an  individual 
wearing a headscarf, the hotel manager was sentenced to a EUR 1 000 fine and a four-
month suspended prison sentence. Meanwhile, in a 2014 decision relating to  a denial of 
access to a gym to an individual wearing a scarf, the sentence was a EUR 250 fine. Such 
sanctions are not effective and dissuasive. 

However,  in  a  Court  of  Appeal  of  Paris  decision  of  11  February  2014  against  EasyJet’s 
repeated  refusal  to  admit  people  in  wheelchairs  aboard  their  planes,  EasyJet  was 
sentenced to a total fine of EUR 50 000 (in relation to a number of occurrences), lowering 
a sentence of a fine of EUR 70 000 imposed by the trial court.248 The Court of Cassation 
upheld this sentence.249  

248  Paris Court of Appeal, No. 12/05062, 11 February 2014.  
249  Court of Cassation Criminal Chamber, No. 13-81586, 15 December 2015, Available at: 

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000031658282&f
astReqId=1575884415&fastPos=4 (accessed 6 September 2016). 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7  BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 

2000/43) 

a) 

Body/bodies  designated  for  the  promotion  of  equal  treatment  irrespective  of 
racial/ethnic origin according to Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive 

A specialised body has been designated for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin according to Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive. It is the 
Defender of Rights established by Organic Law (loi organique) No.2011-333 of 29 March 
2011. 

b) 

Status of the designated body – general independence 

Law No.2011-333  establishing  the Defender  of  Rights integrated the  HALDE into a new, 
constitutionally independent authority (Article 2), which merged a number of pre-existing 
specialised bodies, from 1 May 2011.  

It  provides  for  the  centralisation  of  all  powers  within  the  control  of  the  person  of  the 
Defender of Rights, who is appointed by the President of the Republic through a decision 
taken  at  a  meeting  of  the  Cabinet  after  consultation  with  both  chambers  of  Parliament 
(Article 1). The Defender of Rights cannot be removed except for reasons related to their 
ability to perform their functions, as defined in Articles 3 to 5 of Decree No.2011-905 of 
29 July 2011.250 

The  Defender  of  Rights  nominates  three  deputies,  one  for  each  of  its  fields  of  action 
(Article  11  of  Law  No.2011-333).  When  new  matters  arise,  the  Defender  can  consult  a 
collegial  body  dedicated  to  discrimination  issues  (Article  15  of  the  Organic  Law) 
comprising eight members nominated by various institutions (three by the Senate, three 
by the National Assembly, one by the Conseil d’Etat and one by the Court of Cassation).  

However, the Defender of Rights has the power to decide what claims to pursue (Article 
24 of the Organic Law).  

The  reform  integrating  the  HALDE  into  the  Defender  of  Rights  modifies  the  nomination 
and  decision-making  process  of  the  equality  body.  The  Defender  of  Rights  takes  no 
instructions, but he or she is appointed by the Government.  

The  Defender  of  Rights  is  not  bound  by  any  internal  counter  powers:  he  or  she  is  not 
bound to follow the position of the collegial body and is only required to consult it on new 
matters  submitted  to  the  Defender  for  a  decision.  Furthermore,  the  process  of 
appointment of the members of the collegial body of the Defender of Rights continues to 
be influenced strongly by political forces (six out of eight members are appointed directly 
by political authorities). 

The  administrative  status  of  the  Defender  of  Rights  is  not  subject  to  the  hierarchical 
authority of Government and it has free management of its budget. However, the body’s 
financial resources are limited and derived completely from public funds, which are voted 
on by Parliament every year as part of the Prime Minister’s budget, and thereby could be 
subject to budgetary cuts.  

250  France, Decree No. 2011-905 of 29 July 2011 relating to the organisation of the Defender of Rights (Décret 
No. 2011-905 du 29 juillet 2011 relatif à l'organisation et au fonctionnement des services du Défenseur des 
droits) available at: 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000024414634&categorieLien=id 
(accessed 6 September 2016). 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Whereas  the  HALDE’s  president’s  functions  could  be  combined  with  an  elected  office, 
public  employment  or  any  other  professional  activity,  the  Defender  of  Rights  and  his 
deputies must resign from all other positions (Article 3 of the Organic Law).  

In addition, as a result of the powers exercised by the former Ombudsman (Médiateur de 
la  République),  the  Defender  of  Rights  is  competent  in  matters  relating  to  illegal  and 
unfair  decisions  by  government  services  and  to  the  rights  and  liberties  of  users  of  the 
public  services.  This  extends  the  body’s  competence  to  human  rights,  public  policy  and 
public services. It also covers the rights of children covered by the UN Convention on the 
Rights of the Child and ethics in the activities of public and private security forces. 

c)  Grounds covered by the designated body 

The  Defender of Rights has the same field of  competence as the HALDE on all forms of 
discriminations,  direct  and  indirect,  prohibited  by  French  law  and  therefore  readily 
adaptable  to  any  future  legal  developments.  It  covers  discrimination  on  the  ground  of 
affiliation, whether real or supposed, to an ethnic origin, nation, race or specific religion, 
sex,  disability,  loss  of  autonomy,  age,  health,  sexual  orientation,  opinions,  appearance 
and  trade  union  activities  in  all  areas  regulated  by  law  or  covered  by  an  international 
convention.  Its  scope  goes  beyond  the  requirements  of  Directives  2000/43/EC  and 
2002/73/EC.  

In  addition,  given  its  competence  with  regard  to  all  issues  relating  to  claims  against 
government and public services, as well as the ‘superior interest of children’, as defined 
in article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and ethics in the activities of 
public  and  private  security  forces,  its  range  of  intervention  covers  most  human  rights 
issues,  except as regards defence  rights in criminal law, as well as all issues relating to 
children’s  rights  and  all  issues  relating  to  relations  between  the  police,  security  forces 
and citizens. 

d) 

Competences of the designated body – and their independent exercise 

The Defender of Rights has powers similar to those of the HALDE, and the drafting of the 
organic law on matters of discrimination is modelled on the law creating the HALDE.  

In  addition  to  investigative  powers,  the  Defender  of  Rights  provides  independent 
assistance to victims of discrimination in pursuing their complaints, conducts independent 
reports  and  makes 
surveys  concerning  discrimination,  publishes 
recommendations  to  government,  employers  and  civil  society  actors  relating  to  its 
findings on discrimination. 

independent 

Assistance to victims 

The  Defender  of  Rights  has  competence  to  investigate  individual  and  collective 
complaints, whether the investigation is initiated of its own accord or  following a written 
request from the claimant, a trade union or an NGO.  

These investigative powers allow the Defender to request explanations from any public or 
private  person,  including  the  communication  of  documents  and  the  hearing  of  relevant 
witnesses.  

In  case  of  non-cooperation  with  its  investigative  services,  the  Defender  of  Rights  can 
request a court order and can also pursue the respondent for contempt. The Defender of 
Rights may also ask that all required investigations be carried out by any service of the 
state  and  carry  out  visits  in  any  non-private  premises  after  due  notice  and  with  the 
consent of the owner. Finally, the  law gives the investigators authority to issue a sworn 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
statement concluding that discrimination has taken place, which can only be contradicted 
by way of substantial evidence before the courts.  

In  the  case  of  a  criminal  offence,  the  Defender  of  Rights  may  submit  the  claim  to  the 
criminal courts or proceed with a penal transaction. This is a kind of negotiated criminal 
sanction offered to perpetrators of direct discrimination by application of Article 28 of the 
Organic Law, enforced exclusively by the Defender of Rights. It means that the Defender 
of  Rights,  following  the  investigation  of  a  complaint  resulting  in  a  finding  of  direct 
intentional discrimination by the person or entity investigated, is authorised to suggest a 
specific criminal sanction to the perpetrator, which  they can either accept or reject. This 
could  be  a  fine  or  publication  (for  instance  in  a  press  release)  of  the  fact  that 
discrimination has taken place and, if relevant, an award of compensation to the victim. 
If the proposed negotiated criminal sanction is rejected or there is a subsequent failure to 
comply with it, the Defender of Rights may initiate a criminal prosecution, in place of the 
public  prosecutor,  before  a  criminal  court.  This  system  has  much  in  common  with  the 
procedures  followed  by  other  administrative  authorities,  which  have  the  power  to 
propose  on-the-spot  fines  for  an  infringement  of  the  criminal  law,  such  as  the  tax, 
customs and water or woodland authorities.  

Otherwise,  the  Defender  of  Rights  can  deal  with  any  case  by  pursuing  an  equitable 
settlement, which in French law consists of proposing a solution correcting the unfairness 
of  a  strict  application  of  the  law  despite  the  absence  of  effective  means  of  legal  action 
(Article 25 of the  Organic Law  creating the Defender of Rights), and it may recommend 
mediation to the parties.  

When  the  Defender  of  Rights  completes  the  investigation,  it  will  issue  conclusions  and 
recommendations to the parties who will have a certain amount of time to comply. These 
recommendations can include a request for disciplinary sanctions. The Defender can also 
make  general  recommendations  to  the  parties,  Government,  public  bodies  or  groups  of 
interest  and  propose  legislative  and  regulatory  reforms  and  the  amendment  of  existing 
legislation. 

In  cases  of  non-compliance,  the  Defender  has  the  power  to  issue  ‘injunctions’,  failing 
which  the  body  will  draw  public  attention  to  its  recommendations  and  the  failure  to 
comply. In addition, it may alert the relevant authorities if disciplinary sanctions against 
the respondent are required.  

Conducting independent surveys 

The Defender of Rights has a budget of EUR 300 000 to initiate or participate to surveys 
and  studies  in  the  field  of  discrimination.  It  also  publishes  an  annual  public  survey 
implemented  in  collaboration  with  the  French  ILO  authorities  regarding  the  situation  of 
discrimination in employment. 

In 2015, the following studies co-financed by the Defender of Rights were published: 

- 

- 

Selection Procedures of Workers with Lower Qualifications and Risks of 
Discrimination;251 
Discrimination  Factors  in  the  Processing  of  Requests  for  Social  Housing  in  the 
Territories of La Camy, Nevers, Paris, Plaine Commune and Rennes Metropole;252 

251  Pessaque, B. Guerrouahen, L., Trippon, C., Silva, F., (2015): Selection Procedures of Workers with Lower 

Qualifications and Risks of Discrimination (FACE).  

252  Driant, JC., Lelevrier, C., Cordier, M., Gaullier, P., Lanzaro, M., Navarre, F., (2015): Analyse des facteurs et 
des pratiques de discrimination dans le traitement des demandes de logement sociaux à La Camy, Nevers, 
Paris, Plaine Commune et Rennes Métropole : Rapport final (Discrimination Factors in the Processing of 
Requests for Social Housing in the Territories of La Camy, Nevers, Paris, Plaine Commune and Rennes 
Metropole), Defender of Rights/University of East Paris (IUP Lab’URBA). 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
- 
- 
- 
- 

Access to Voting for Disabled People;253 
Perceptions and Experience of Discriminations in Ile-de-France in 2014;254 
Introduction of the Subject of Discrimination in Secondary Level Teaching;255 
The  Non-public  Nature  of  Anti-discrimination  Claim  Mechanisms:  challenges  for 
public polices and victims.256 

Publication of independent reports and recommendations 

Every  year  the  Defender  of  Rights  publishes  independent  reports  addressed  to  the 
Government  and  recommendations  to  the  Government  and  Parliament  recommending 
legislative and regulatory reforms further to its findings of discrimination or in the course 
of the legislative process. In 2015, he sent 29 such reports to the Parliament257 and five 
reports to the Government.258 

e) 

Legal standing of the designated body/bodies 

In France the designated body has legal standing to intervene in legal cases concerning 
discrimination.  

The  Defender  of  Rights  has  been  conceived  as  a  ‘judicial  official’  (Article  33  of  the 
Organic  Law):  the  law  creates  the  possibility  for  the  criminal,  civil  and  administrative 
courts to seek its observations in cases under adjudication. In addition, the Law on Equal 
Opportunities extended its power to the submission of observations on its own  initiative 
before the criminal, civil and administrative courts. 

It  cannot  bring  a  case  on  its  own  except  as  regards  direct  citation  before  the  criminal 
courts in case of a refusal by the respondent to comply with the demands of a settlement 
(Article 28 of the Organic Law creating the Defender of Rights). 

f) 

Quasi-judicial competences 

In France the body is not a quasi-judicial institution. 

g) 

Registration by the body/bodies of complaints and decisions 

In  France  the  body  registers  the  number  of  complaints  and  decisions  (by  ground,  field, 
type of discrimination, etc.). These data are available to the public in its annual report.259 

h) 

Roma and Travellers 

As  regards  the  Roma  and  Traveller  populations,  HALDE  had  the  opportunity  to  adopt  a 
number  of  recommendations  regarding  access  to  education  and  housing,  derogatory 

http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/rapport_def_19_fevrier_2016_0.pdf 
(accessed 6 September 2016).  

253  Defender of Rights (2015), Accès au vote des personnes handicapées (Access to voting for disabled people) 

(March 2015), internet link: http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/fr/publications/rapports/rapports-
thematiques/acces-au-vote-des-personnes-handicapees.  

254  Simon, P., Eberhard, M., (2015), Perceptions et expérience des discriminations en Ile-de-France en 2014, 

(Perceptions and Experience of Discriminations in Ile-de-France in 2014)  INED, ARDIS. 

255  Dhume, F., Sotto, F., (2015), L'introduction du thème des discriminations dans l'enseignement secondaire 

(Introduction of the Subject of Discrimination in Secondary Level Teaching), ISCRA, Association des Zégaux. 

256  Bogalska-Martin, E., Prevert, A., (2015), Les « non-publics » des dispositifs de lutte contre les 

discriminations : enjeux pour l’action publique et les victimes (The non-public nature of anti-discrimination 
claim mechanisms : challenges for public polices and victims), PACTE – UMR CNRS 5194. 

257  http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/fr/publications/avis-au-parlement (accessed 6 September 2016). 
258  http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/fr/publications?type=46 (accessed 6 September 2016). 
259  Defender of Rights (2015), Annual Report 2015, available at: http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/fr/rapport-

annuel-dactivite-2015 (accessed 6 September 2016).  

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
administrative  conditions  relating  to  travelling  with  regard  to  driving  licences,  identity 
cards, occupation of non-construction land, access to amenities etc.  

However,  in  2006,  having  observed  insufficient  numbers  of  claims  by these  groups,  the 
HALDE  decided  to  set  up  a  working  group  to  look  into  their  specific  status  and  its 
conformity with community law in order to submit recommendations to the Government 
to insure the pursuit of all necessary reforms. The conclusions of the working group were 
adopted by the HALDE in December 2007.  

Law  No.69-3  of  3  January  1969  relating  to  the  status  of  Travellers  still  creates  an 
obligation  on  the  part  of  citizens  with  no  permanent  domicile  who  are  travelling  on 
French  territory  to  hold  special  travelling  identity  papers  that  must  be  validated  at  the 
local  office  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  within  48  hours  of  arriving  in  the  prefecture 
(préfecture) and can be checked by the police at any time.260 The HALDE has concluded 
that this was a violation of their rights to free movement and to privacy.  

It  recommended  a  reform  of  the  status  of  Travelling  people  in  order  to  eliminate  all 
specific  identity  papers  and  all  measures  resulting  in  increased  police  checks  (HALDE 
Deliberation  No.2007-372  of  17  December  2007,  recommending  reform  of  the  legal 
regime applicable to Travellers (gens du voyage).261  

In addition, these citizens must specify a designated city where they are to be domiciled, 
but do not have the right to vote for three years, whereas the general population, as well 
as homeless people, are only required to have been registered for a period of six months 
in order to acquire the right to vote.  

The  Defender  of  Rights  reiterated  the  HALDE’s  position  and  requested  a  reform  of  the 
legislation  as  regards  access  to  voting  rights  in  decision  No.  2011-11  addressed  to  the 
Minister  of  Interior,  who  replied  in  February  2012  by  referring  to  a  proposed  overall 
reform of the status of Travellers after the elections in autumn 2012. On 5 October 2012, 
the Constitutional Council quashed this aspect  of the legislation and a legislative reform 
is expected. This recommendation was reiterated by the Defender of Rights in its decision 
MLD-MSP-2014-152 of 24 November 2014.262 

On 1 December 2011, the Defender of Rights submitted a new proposal to the Minister of 
the  Interior and all the mayors  of France in order to  request that all proceedings to cut 
access to electricity and water by reason of illegal use of land be suspended in the winter 
period  for  humanitarian  reasons  and  the  public  duty  to  take  into  consideration  in  all 
matters  the  higher  interest  of  the  child.  This  recommendation  was  followed  by  some 
municipal authorities. 

In  2009,  the  HALDE  concluded  that  the  French  Government’s  policy  and  transitional 
regime targeted Romanian and Bulgarian Roma and was, as such, discriminatory on the 
ground  of  race  and  ethnic  origin.  This  transitional  regime  ended  on  1  January  2014. 
Romanians and Bulgarians now have full access to the employment market. 

The Ministry  of  Immigration confirmed having escorted 14 000 Romanian Roma back to 
Romania  in  2012,  compared  with  1 600  in  2007.  However,  at  the  end  of  each  year  the 
number  of  Romanian  and  Bulgarian  Roma  in  France  remains  constant,  year  after  year. 

260  France, Law No. 69-3 of 3 January 1969 relating to the status of Travellers (Loi No. 69-3 du 3 janvier 1969 

relative à l'exercice des activités ambulantes et au régime applicable aux personnes circulant en France sans 
domicile ni résidence fixe), available at: 
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000317526&fastPos=1&fastReqId=1998342
744&categorieLien=cid&oldAction=rechTexte (accessed 6 September 2016). 

261  HALDE Deliberation No. 2007-372, available at: http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr. 
262  Defender of Rights decision no MLD-MSP 2014-152, available at: http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The total is estimated to be 20 000 and the same groups seem to keep coming back after 
they are sent back to Romania.  

The Government maintains a policy of pursuing illegal settlement by Roma and Travellers 
on  improvised  camp  sites.  This  results  in  constant  evictions  and  checks,  which  create 
anxiety and insecurity in these communities. The National Commission on Security Ethics 
(CNDS)  (which  was  merged  with  the  HALDE  as  of  1  May  2011  to  form  the  Defender  of 
Rights)  has  reported  disproportionately  violent  evictions,  which  gave  rise  to  unjustified 
violence  by  police  forces.  In  addition,  Romanian  and  Bulgarian  Roma  in  France  are 
victims of collective expulsions from France contrary to Article 4 of the 4th Protocol to the 
European Convention on Human Rights.  

The  situation  regarding  Roma  in  2012  led  to  many  NGO  complaints  to  the  Defender  of 
Rights  in  all  its  capacities,  whether  relating  to  the  defence  of  children,  ethics  in  the 
security  services,  combating  discrimination  or  inequality  and  illegal  acts  by  the  public 
services.  There  were  an  estimated  20  claims  relating  to  14  Departments,  on  25  sites, 
concerning  approximately  1  625  people  in  all,  plus  1  000  people  in  Seine  St-Denis 
(Department  93).  The  Defender  of  Rights  presented  observations  before  the  courts  in 
support of the suspension of 30 eviction procedures, in order to require that the prefect 
implement conditions of humanitarian support, as defined in the Ministerial instruction of 
26 August 2012. In addition, the Defender of Rights systematically sent questionnaires to 
prefects concerning each eviction asking them to report on measures taken to implement 
humanitarian eviction procedures.  

A report on the implementation of this Ministerial Instruction since September 2012 was 
published  by  the  Defender  of  Rights  in  June  2013,  in  order  to  alert  the  Government  to 
the  inadequate  respect  for  humanitarian  requirements.  It  was  also  intended  to  provide 
NGOs  with  a  legal  vade  mecum  in  order  to  empower  support  networks  to  use  judicial 
proceedings  to  ensure  access  to  rights  for  these  groups.263  It  requested  that  financial 
means  be  provided  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  interministerial  instruction 
relating  to  evictions  of  illegal  campsites  and  access  to  rights,  and  that  further 
coordination at European level ensure strong public policy in support of Roma integration. 
In  2013,  21 000  people  were  evicted  from  illegally  occupied  campsites.  Further  to  this 
report, the inter-ministerial delegation for precarious housing (DIHAL) was given a wider 
and  stronger  mandate.  EUR  4  million  was  awarded  to  support  integration  processes  for 
individual  families  who  would  remain  on  French  territory.  It  continues  to  present  its 
conclusions before the courts in support of the suspension of eviction procedures. 

263  Defender of Rights (2013), Report on the implementation of eviction in application of Ministerial Instruction 
24 August 2012, (Défenseur des droits, Rapports sur la mise en oeuvre des évacuations en apllicaiton de la 
circulaire du 24 Aout 2013, Juin 2013) available at: 
http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/fr/publications/rapports/rapports-thematiques/anticipation-et-
accompagnement-de-levacuation-des (accessed 6 September 2016). 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8 

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES  

8.1  Dissemination  of  information,  dialogue  with  NGOs  and  between  social 

partners 

Dissemination of information about legal protection against discrimination 

Most  NGOs,  whether  anti-racist  or  promoting  the  rights  of  disabled  people,  gay  people, 
people with certain health conditions or the elderly (including MRAP, SOS Racism, LICRA, 
LDH,  SIDA  Info  services,  AIDES,  LGBT,  APF  etc.),264  are  subsidised  by  the  state  and 
pursue  dissemination  activities.  These  activities  include  dissemination  from  their  own 
websites, presenting legal precedents and legal tools, many of which are adapted for the 
visually impaired, as well as seminars and events. 

In  2007  and  2008,  the  HALDE  coordinated  dissemination  actions  in  France,  financed 
through  the  European  Year  of  Equal  Opportunities  for  All,  to  raise  awareness  among 
Travellers  and  their  representatives  of  anti-discrimination  law.  In  2012  and  2013,  its 
successor,  the  Defender  of  Rights,  benefited  from  Progress  project  funding  to  publish  a 
handbook  for  local  authorities  to  provide  them  with  guidance  regarding  requirements  of 
implementation of anti-discrimination policy.265 

An  inter-ministerial  delegate  was  nominated  in  order  to  coordinate  government  action 
with regard to racism (Délégué interministériel à la lutte contre le racisme, DILCRA). It is 
currently putting in place a vast training programme for 50 000 civil servants in contact 
with the public, in order to train them to offer adequate support and guidance for victims 
of racism and to respond to situations of overt racism. 

The  Defender  of  Rights  pursues  communications  activities  through  its  website,  the 
publication of leaflets, posters in all public services, its network of local delegates and its 
media strategy, and it also regularly contributes to training programmes for civil servants 
and civil society. 

On 5 October 2015, the Defender of Rights co-organised with the Judicial Supreme Court 
(Court  of  Cassation,  Cour  de  Cassation),  the  Administrative  Supreme  Court  (Conseil 
d’Etat) and the National Bar Association a one-day seminar at the Court of Cassation to 
celebrate the 10th anniversary of the national equality body. At the morning session the 
heads  of  jurisdiction,  Mr  Justice  Jean-Claude  Bonichot  from  the  European  Court  of 
Justice,  and  Madam  Justice  Françoise  Tulkens,  former  vice-president  of  the  European 
Court  of  Human  Rights,  presented  each  court’s  contribution  to  ten  years  of  judicial 
development.  In  the  afternoon,  lawyers  who  had  initiated  determining  landmark  cases 
presented their judicial strategy and their analyses  of legal developments of the last 10 
years. 

Measures to promote dialogue with NGOs 

The  National  Consultative  Commission  on  Human  Rights  (Commission  nationale 
consultative des droits de l'homme, CNCDH), counsel to the Prime Minister, is composed 
of representatives of all the major human rights and anti-racism NGOs, trade unions and 

264  MRAP (Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples - Movement against racism and for 

friendship between peoples), SOS Racism, LICRA (Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme - 
International League against Racism and anti-Semitism), LDH (Ligue des droits de l’homme - Human Rights 
League), SIDA Info services (Aids hotline), AIDES (Rights of people suffering from Aids), LGBT (Lesbian, 
Gay, Bisexual and Trans coalition), APF (Association des paralysés de France – French Association of Victims 
of Paralysis). 

265  Defender of Rights (2014), ‘Local authority guide to accessibility’ (Collectivités territoriales: Guide pour 

l’accessibilité des établissements recevant du public), March 2014, available at: 
http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/fr/publications/rapports/rapports-thematiques/anticipation-et-
accompagnement-de-levacuation-des (accessed 6 September 2016). 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
branches  of  the  public  sector.  It  is  consulted  on  all  legislative  reforms  affecting  human 
rights and provides advice and recommendations to the Government. It is organised into 
six sub-commissions, one of which is responsible for the annual publication of a report on 
racism and anti-Semitism.  

At  the  departmental  level,  the  Departmental  Commissions  on  Access  to  Citizenship 
(Comités  départementaux  d’accès  à  la  citoyenneté,  CODAC)  –  which  was  dedicated  to 
combating  racial  discrimination  –  were  renamed  the  Commissions  for  the  Promotion  of 
Equality  and  Citizenship  (Commissions pour  la  promotion  de  l'égalité  des  chances  et  la 
citoyenneté, COPEC) and had their mission redefined in September 2004.266 The COPEC 
brings  together  all local  actors  under  the  authority  of  the  representative  of  the  national 
state in the department (the Prefect). It is intended to generate cooperation and dialogue 
for the promotion of equality addressing all grounds of discrimination.  

Law  No.2005-102  on  equal  opportunities  and  the  integration  of  disabled  persons 
structures  all  the  national  and  local  commissions  involved  in  establishing  policies 
concerning disabled people and enforcing their  rights, such as the National  Consultative 
Council  of  Disabled  Persons  (Conseil  National  Consultatif  des  Personnes  Handicapées) 
and its local counterparts, around the participation of NGOs representing disabled people 
(Article  1  of  the  Law  creating  Article  L146-1  A  CSW).  It  further  creates  a  Departmental 
Commission for the Rights and the Autonomy of Disabled Persons which is competent for 
all decisions relating to the orientation of disabled people (see Section 6.1). Its members 
are  representatives  of  public  services,  NGOs,  trade  unions  and  social  partners  and  at 
least 30 % representatives of disabled persons (Article 66 of the  Law on Title 1V of the 
Code  of  Social  Welfare).  NGOs  in  France  have  traditionally  had  the  tasks  of  the  public 
sector delegated to them in terms of support for disabled people and their families. 

The  Defender  of  Rights  coordinates  several  consultative  committees  with  NGOs  on  all 
grounds  of  discrimination.  These  six-monthly  meetings  provide  an  opportunity  to  keep 
NGOs  informed  of  the  Defender  of  Right’s  actions  and  likewise  to  keep  the  Defender  of 
Rights  informed  of  the  concerns  of  NGOs.  There  are  such  committees  on  LGBTI  rights, 
disabled people’s rights and on discrimination in housing and employment. 

Measures to promote dialogue between social partners  

Article 4 of the Law of 16 November 2001 integrates the fight against discriminations as 
an  objective  in  collective  bargaining,  in  branch  (sub-sections  of  the  labour  force) 
negotiations and national negotiations dealt with at the level of the National Commission 
on Collective Bargaining.  

Article  L2261-22  LC  was  modified  in  order  to  extend  the  equality  objective  not  only  in 
terms  of  access  to  employment  but  in  terms  of  training  and  the  employee’s  career  as 
well. However, it limits this objective to the criteria of race and ethnic origin.  

In  addition,  the  commission  responsible  for  monitoring  professional  equality  between 
men and women has seen its competence extended to discrimination based on race and 
ethnic  origin  (Article  L2271-1,  paragraph  8  LC).  Elements  concerning  racial  and  sex 
discrimination  have  become  a  mandatory  provision  in  all  branch  collective  agreements. 
However,  beyond  informal  affirmation,  these  undertakings  have  not  generated  any 
specific negotiation in relation to equality. 

266  France, Ministerial Instruction, New missions for the Departmental Commissions on Access to Citizenship 

and the Commissions for the Promotion of Equality, (Circulaire COPEC NOR/INT/K/04/00117/C, 20 
September 2004 , Missions nouvelles des commissions départementales d’accès à la citoyenneté (CODAC), 
commissions pour la promotion de l'égalité des chances et la citoyenneté’ (COPEC), available at: 
http://i.ville.gouv.fr/index.php/reference/3016/circulaire-nor-int-k-04-00117-c-du-20-septembre-2004-
relative-aux-missions-nouvelles-des-commissions-departementales-d-acces-a-la (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In the public services, social dialogue is a basic organisational principle, since all levels of 
human  resources  management  are  dealt  with  in  a  joint  decision  system  where 
representatives of the state and unions are equally represented (Law No.83-634 of 1 July 
1983, Article 9, paragraph 1).  

Article 25 of the Law No.2005-102 on equal opportunities and the integration of disabled 
persons  modifies  Articles  L2241-1  and  L2242-1  LC,  which  concern  mandatory  annual 
negotiations between social partners, to create an obligation to hold annual negotiations 
concerning  measures  necessary  for  the  professional  integration  of  disabled  people.  In 
addition,  social  partners  participate  in  the  Departmental  Commission  for  the  Rights  and 
Autonomy of Disabled Persons.  

to  mandatory  negotiation  obligations  with 

In reality, social partners are not sufficiently involved: they seldom represent employees 
against  the  employer  before  the  courts  in  discrimination  cases  and  are  reluctant  to 
submit 
to  discrimination. 
Discrimination  is  perceived  as  a  side  issue  that  conflicts  with  the  social  agenda  in  the 
employer’s premises and, more generally, in global negotiation objectives. Discrimination 
is considered as an approach that protects target groups, whereas trade unions represent 
the interests of all employees. 

respect 

The  Minister  of  Employment,  François  Rebsamen,  initiated  a  working  group  meeting 
every  other  week  from  October  2014  to  June  2015,  bringing  together  social  partners, 
NGOs,  the  French  equality  body  and  recognised  experts,  in  order  to  confer  on  good 
practices  and  difficulties  related  to  the  implementation  of  anti-discrimination  policy  and 
legislation. The group issued a report on 13 May 2015, called the Sciberras report, which 
recommended the development  of  reporting obligations on  discrimination in the  context 
of  the  adoption  of  obligations  regarding  the  disclosure  of  diversity  and  non-financial 
information.267 

Addressing the situation of Roma and Travellers  

In  August  2012,  the  Government  gave  a  specific  mandate  to  the  Interministerial 
Delegation  on  Emergency  Accommodation  and  Access  to  Housing  (Délégation 
interministérielle  à  l'hébergement  et  à  l'accès  au  logement,  DIHAL)  to  establish  the 
conditions  for  a  programme  on  access  to  rights  (including  health,  education, 
employment,  accommodation  and  housing)  and  integration  of  foreign  Roma  and 
Travellers.  It  published  programmes,  including  good  practices  for  local  authorities  and 
coordination of public policy, throughout 2013. In autumn 2013, it was further mandated 
to coordinate the implementation of integration policies targeting the Roma and initiating 
preparatory work to launch a review of the status of Travellers. 

The  National  Consultative  Commission  on  Travellers  (Commission  nationale  consultative 
des gens du voyage) was reinstated in 2015. 

The  National  Assembly  has  passed  in  first  reading  on  9  June  2015,  a  parliamentary 
legislative  proposal  of  the  socialist  group  to  repeal  Law  No.  69-3  (of  1969)  regulating 
Travellers,  after  a  number  of  decisions  declaring  the  1969  law  to  be  discriminatory  and 
contrary to international conventions on human rights, 268thereby putting an end to their 

267  Sciberras, Jean-Christophe (2015), Rapport de synthèse des travaux du groupe de dialogue inter-

partenaires sur le lutte contre les discriminations en entreprise, 13 May 2015, 
http://www.ville.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport_sciberras.pdf (accessed 6 September 2016). 

268  On 28 March 2014, the UN Human Rights Committee condemned France for violation of Article 12 of the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, concluding that Law No. 69-3 did not respect the 
principle of freedom of movement by imposing upon Travelers an obligation to carry a circulation booklet 
and to regularly present it to police authorities to have it stamped, with the threat of criminal sanctions. It 
requested that the Law No 69-3 of 3 January 1969 be reviewed and that France take action to prevent any 
further action before the Criminal Court to enforce this legislation (cf. FR-120). The Conseil d’Etat also 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
obligation to carry special identity papers and to have them validated.269 The law has not 
yet been scheduled to be voted on by the Senate.  

In  addition,  the  bill  amends  the  Code  of  Social  Welfare  in  order  to  allow  Travellers  to 
benefit  from  the  same  rules  regarding  designation  of  administrative  residence  and 
registration  on  voting  list  as  any  person  without  fixed  domicile.  Article  2,  also  amends 
Law  No. 2000-614  of  5  July 2000  regarding  the  parking  and  accommodation  of 
Travellers,  by  imposing  a  duty  on  urban  planning  legislation  to  take  into  account  the 
need  for  land  allowing  their  ritual  gatherings  and  specific  land  permitting  long-term 
parking, called family plots, to be purchased or rented, in order to recognise the current 
need to be partially sedentary in periods when they do not travel, mainly for reasons of 
medical care or children’s education.  

8.2  Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) 

a)  Mechanisms 

French law does not require that express legislation be introduced in order to ensure the 
superiority  of  the  principle  of  equality  to  other  sources  of  rights.  Equal  treatment  is  a 
constitutional principle and a rule of public order sanctioned by the Penal Code. Article 6 
of the Civil Code further expresses the following general principle:  ‘One cannot derogate 
from  laws  that  concern  public  order  by  way  of  a  particular  agreement’,  thus  rendering 
this  type  of  agreement  null  and  void.  Articles  1382  ff.  and  1146  ff.  of  the  Civil  Code 
implement a general regime of civil and contractual liability which adapts to the evolution 
of  custom  and  of  superior  rules  of  law,  thereby  adapting  to  Directives  2000/43/EC  and 
2000/78/EC.  Article  L1134-4  LC  further  expressly  states  that  any  such  act  is  null  and 
void  and  Article  2  of  Law  No.2008-496  of  28  May  2008  expressly  covers  independent 
activities.  

Articles  6  and  6  quinquines  of  Law  No.83-634  of  1  July  1983  are  rules  of  general 
application  and  public  order.  They  must  be  respected  in  all  regulatory  acts  or  decisions 
regarding a public servant.  

The  general  principle  lex  posterior  derogat  legi  priori  applies  to  human  rights  and 
therefore  implies  the  inapplicability  of  all  non-conforming  legislation  and  conventions. 
Finally  the  Conseil  d’Etat  held  in  its  decision  of  30  October  2009,  that  EU  Directive 
2000/78/EC provided sufficiently precise rules that were of direct application in cases of 
insufficient transposition that insured its application to all working relationships.270 

b) 

Rules contrary to the principle of equality 

There  is  no  process  of  periodic  legislative  audit  or  restatement  in  France  and  the  state 
has  not  undertaken  an  audit  in  order  to  verify  compliance  of  all  texts  in  force  with  the 
directives.  Such  legislation  must  be  challenged  before  the  Conseil  d’Etat  or  the  Cour  de 
cassation,  which  are  responsible  for  the  control  of  conventionality,  or  before  the 
European  Court  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  The  HALDE,  and  now  the  Defender  of  Rights, 
have  regularly  raised  issues  related  to  the  non-conformity  of  specific  legislation  or 
regulation with European anti-discrimination law.  

As  regards  national  collective  agreements  and  contractual  undertakings,  they  could  be 
questioned  by  way  of  social  dialogue  but,  in  fact,  must,  on  most  issues,  be  challenged 
before the courts. 

declared this part of the law to be null and void in a decision of 19 November 2014, 10th and 9th Sections 
No. 359223 (cf. FR-125). 

269  Parliamentary legislative proposal No. 1610 to create repeal Law No. 69-3 regulating Travellers, 

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/ta/ta0526.asp. 

270  Conseil d’Etat, No. 298348, 30 October 2009. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
9  COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

The National Action Plan against Racism 2012-2014 was presented to the Cabinet by the 
Minister of the Interior on 15 February 2012.271 It focused on the fight against racism and 
anti-Semitism  as  a  priority  for  Government  action  and  plans  the  creation  of  an 
Interministerial delegate against racism and anti-Semitism (délégué interministériel à la 
lutte contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme) reporting to the Prime Minister and the Minister 
of  the  Interior,  to  initiate,  coordinate  and  evaluate  Government  action.272  Regis  Guyot 
was  nominated  Interministerial  Delegate  (DILCRA)  and  was  kept  in  post  by  the  new 
Government. He has initiated improvements in police and justice statistics on racist and 
anti-Semitic  acts,  as  well  as  commissioning  studies  on  diversity  in  French  society  and 
training for the public services. He was replaced by Gilles Clavreul on 26 November 2014, 
who published his own action plan  for the fight against racism and anti-Semitism on 19 
April 2015, together with the Prime Minister, the Education Minister, the Justice Minister, 
the Minister of Interior, the Minister of Culture, and state secretaries in charge of digital 
information and urban management policy.  

The plan, which has a budget of EUR 100 million over three years, sets out 40 measures 
that are to be implemented under the supervision of the DILCRA who will have to report 
annually  to  the  National  Consultative  Human  Rights  Commission,  the  Economic  and 
Social  Council  and  European  human  rights  institutions.  EUR  25  million  per  year  will  be 
used for projects in the suburbs in the context of the national urban management’s policy 
against  discrimination  and  racism.  The  fight  against  racism  and  anti-Semitism  was 
declared  ‘National  Great  Cause’  for  2015,  which  will  lead  to  a  national  communication 
campaign,  financed  initiatives  by  anti-racist  NGOs,  and  mobilisation  around  the 
dissemination of counter-discourses to fight hate speech on the internet. A specific action 
plan was also to be implemented in the national education programme.273 Measures were 
also taken to improve safety around places of worship and  faith schools. The repression 
of hate crime on the internet was reinforced.  

Finally,  following  a  number  of  initiatives  on  the  part  of  Members  of  Parliament,  which 
have never been taken up by the Government, the Prime Minister announced that a bill 
would be presented to create a class action procedure for victims of discrimination, which 
was passed before the  Senate in first reading on 5 November 2015 and is scheduled to 
be  voted  on  in  first  reading  by  the  National  Assembly  in  May  2016.274  It  has  been 
conceived as a tool to impose change  in future practice. A class action will be preceded 
by a written request that must give rise to a six-month period of mediation. This will be a 
request for cessation of discrimination, without compensatory damages for the past. The 
class  action  will  be  exclusively  initiated  by  trade  unions  for  discrimination  in  the  work 
place, and NGOs for discrimination outside employment.  

The  Fund  for  Action  and  Support  for  Integration  and  Combating  Discrimination  (Fonds 
d’Action et de Soutien  pour l’Intégration et la  Lutte contre les Discriminations, FASILD), 
which became the National Agency for Social Cohesion and Equal Opportunities  (Agence 
nationale pour la cohésion sociale  et l’égalité des chances, ANCSEC),  historically  funded 
NGOs and actors in the fight against discrimination.275 The programmes supporting anti-

271  France, National action plan against racism and anti-Semitism (Plan national d’action contre le racisme et 

l’anti-sémitisme), available at: http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/contenu/piece-
jointe/2015/09/racisme_antisemitisme-dilcra.pdf (accessed 6 September 2016).  

272  France, Decree No. 2012-221 of 16 February 2012 creating a delegate against racism and anti-semitism 

(Décret No. 2012-221 du 16 février 2012 instituant un délégué interministériel à la lutte contre le racisme 
et l'antisémitisme), available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000025372209 (accessed 6 September 
2016).  

273  http://www.gouvernement.fr/planantiracisme-eveiller-les-consciences-agir-ne-plus-rien-laisser-passer. 
274  http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/dossiers/justice_21e_siecle.asp.  
275  It was dissolved by Law No. 2014-173 of 21 February 2014 on town planning and urban cohesion (Loi No. 
2014-173 du 21 février 2014 de programmation pour la ville et la cohésion urbaine) after its mission had 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
discrimination  activities  have  been  transformed  into  migrant  integration  policies  under 
the supervision of the Ministry of Finance. A new interministerial delegate for integration 
and equality was established by decree No.2014-385 of 29 March 2014 and nominated in 
June  2014.276  The  Delegate  is  tasked  with  coordinating  social  migrant  support  policies 
and  should  was  nominated  in  April  2014.  It  is  complemented  by  the  General 
Commissioner  for  Territorial  Equality  (Commissariat  général  à  l'égalité  des  territoires, 
CGET),  Marie-Caroline  Bonnet-Ballzy,  appointed  on  1  June  2014,  who  took  over  the 
budget and resources of the ANCSEC and is mandated to implement access to rights and 
anti-discrimination policy targeting underprivileged areas of the country. 

Government 
Ministry  of  the  Interior,  Ministry  of  Education,  Ministry  of  Justice,  Ministry  of  Social 
Affairs, Health and Women’s Rights and the Ministry of Urban Affairs, Youth and Sport. 

Government departments 
The  Women’s  Rights  Service  (SdFe)  has  become  a  simple  service  of  the  General 
Directorate for Social Cohesion (DGCS, below) within the Ministry of Social Affairs, under 
the  supervision  of  the  Minister  for  Women’s  Rights;  the  Directorate  of  Population  and 
Migration  (DPM)  was  replaced  by  the  Directorate  for  Reception,  Integration  and 
Citizenship,  under  the  auspices  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior;  the  Directorate  for 
Support,  Integration  and  Access  to  Citizenship  for  Foreign  Nationals  (DAAEN);  the 
Directorate  of  Labour  Relations  (DRT);  the  General  Directorate  for  Social  Cohesion 
(DGCS);  the  General  Directorate  for  Health  (DGS);  the  General  Delegation  for 
Employment  and  Professional  Training  (DGEFP);  the  Directorate  for  the  Coordination  of 
Research, Studies and Statistics (DARESS); the Directorate for Research, Evaluation and 
Statistics (DRESS); the Directorate for Public Liberties, Ministry of the Interior (Roma and 
Travellers); General Directorate for the Management of the Public Services (DGAFP). 

National Research Institutes: 
INSEE (National Institute of Statistics) 
INED (National Demographics Institute) 
CAS (Centre for Strategic Analysis, Centre d’analyse stratégique) 

Interministerial Delegations:  
Interministerial  Delegation  on  Emergency  Accommodation  and  Access  to  Housing 
(DIHAL)  
Interministerial  Delegation  on  Equal  Opportunities  for  French  Nationals  from  the 
Overseas Territories  
Interministerial Delegation for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
Interministerial Delegation for accessibility for Disabled Persons 
Interministerial Delegation on Urban Affairs and Development 
Interministerial Delegation against Racism and anti-Semitism (DILCRA) 
Interministerial Delegation for Integration and Equality 
Interministerial Committee on Disability (CIH) 

Public bodies: 
National Agency for Urban Regeneration (Agence nationale de rénovation urbaine, ANRU) 
French  Office  of  Immigration  and  Integration  (Office  français  de  l’immigration  et  de 
l’intégration, OFII) 

been thwarted to concentrate on urban regeneration projects, available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000028636804 (accessed 6 September 
2016). 

276  France, Decree No. 2014-385 of 29 March 2014 creating a delegate for republican equality integration 

(Décret No. 2014-385 du 29 mars 2014 portant création d'un délégué interministériel à l'égalité républicaine 
et à l'intégration), available at: 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000028811261&categorieLien=id 
(accessed 6 September 2016). 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
General  Commissioner  for  Territorial  Equality  (Commissariat  général  à  l'égalité  des 
territories, CGET) 

Consultative bodies: 
National Consultative Commission on Travellers 
National Consultative Commission on Human Rights 
National Consultative Commission for the Retired and Older People 
National Consultative Commission on Persons with Disabilities 
National Council for Social Inclusion 
High Council for Professional Equality between Men and Women 
Commission for Political Equality between Men and Women 

Specialised administrative bodies: 
Merged to form the Defender of Rights: 

Ombudsman for the public sector (Médiateur de la République) 
National Commission on Security Ethics (Commission nationale de déonthologie de 
la sécurité, CNDS) 
Children’s Defender (Défenseur des enfants) 
Equal  Opportunities  and  Anti-Discrimination  Commission  (Haute  autorité  de  lutte 
contre les discriminations et pour l’égalité, HALDE) 

CNIL (National Commission for IT and Liberty) 
CSA (Higher Council for Radio and Television) 
CADA (Commission for Access to Administrative Documents) 

Justice: 
Anti-discrimination division (part of all public prosecutor’s offices). 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Equality body consultative committees bringing together NGOs to share information 
and  for  consultation  on  different  subjects  e.g.  disability,  LGBTI,  discrimination  in 
employment, discrimination in housing (Section 8.1). 
School  integration  system  for  Roma  and  Traveller  children  (CASNAV)  (Section 
5b)4)). 
Employment quotas for disabled persons in the public and private sectors (Section 
5b)1)). 
The  CNIL.  Defender  of  Rights  Guide  to  promoting  monitoring  and  measuring  of 
discrimination in employment (Section 2.3.1 a)). 
National  network  of  free  legal  consultations  managed  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice 
through the Departmental Commission on Access to Rights under the supervision of 
the President of the First Instance District Court. (Section 6.1)a)). 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES 

11.1 Potential breaches of the directives (if any) 

Even  if  the  courts  will  not  hesitate  to  proceed  by  way  of  direct  application  of  the 
Directives,  some  discrepancies  remain  in  national  legislation  and  the  precisions  they 
provide for those who enforce them. 

Law No.83-634 regulating employment law in the public services, which was amended to 
cover discrimination by the above-mentioned transposition legislation, states at Article 3 
that,  in  conformity  with  Article  64  of  the  Constitution  of  1958,  it  does  not  cover  the 
status  of  magistrates,  who  are  not  considered  to  be  civil  servants.  Ordinance  No.58-
1270 of 22 December 1958 regulates the rules applicable to both prosecution and state 
magistrates  and  judges  on  the  bench.  Moreover,  public  servants  working  within 
Parliament similarly not subject to Law No.83-634 and are also governed by application 
of Article 3 of the Law  by separate in-house rules of Parliament. Finally, all contractual 
public  servants  who  hold  one  of  the  various  statuses  that  are  excluded  from  the 
application  of  Law  No.84-16  of  11  November  1984  on  the  status  of  state  contractual 
agents  at  Article  3,  paragraph  5,  are  also  excluded  from  all  protections  against 
discrimination for public servants provided by Law No.83-634. None of these texts have 
been  amended  to  implement  Directive  2000/78/EC  and  do  not  contain  any  protection 
against  discrimination  on  any  grounds.  It  is  important  to  note  that  all  public  servants 
who  are  not  covered  by  transposition  do  not  benefit  from  the  right  to  reasonable 
accommodation in case of disability, unless they seek enforcement by the courts.  

With respect to the status of the armed forces, France has availed itself of the exception 
in Article 3 (4) of Directive 2000/78/EC allowing derogation concerning criteria based on 
age and disability.  

The  definition  of  direct  discrimination  still  does  not  expressly  include  the  possibility  of 
proceeding  by  means  of  hypothetical  comparison.  This  appears  not  to  comply  with  the 
directive.  There  have  been  no  cases  arguing  the  possibility  to  proceed  by  way  of  such 
comparison on the basis of direct application of the Directive.  

The  definition  of  the  burden  of  proof  only  requires  in  defence  that  the  defendant 
establish  that  the  decision  was  objective  and  non-discriminatory,  and  does  not  require 
that defendant establish appropriateness and necessity, which seems to be in breach of 
the directive.  

Law 2008-496 completes the framework of protection against victimisation for all Article 
19(1) TFEU grounds (Article 3). However, this definition provides no indication as to the 
applicable burden of proof and seems to remain inadequate.  

Whereas in former legislation the French state had not availed itself of the possibility of 
providing  for  exceptions  based  on  professional  requirements,  except  on  the  ground  of 
age, it adds a paragraph to the Labour Code which allows a characteristic based on any 
of the prohibited grounds to be presented by the employer as a professional requirement 
as  long  as  ‘its  objective  is  legitimate  and  the  requirement  proportionate’  (Article  6  of 
Law  2008-496  of  27  May  2008  amending  article  L1133-1  of  the  Labour  Code).  This 
framework does not appear to conform to the requirements of the directives. 

In relation to disability, transposition was completed by Law No.2005-102 of 11 February 
2005  on  equal  opportunities  and  the  integration  of  disabled  persons.277  The  law 

277  France, Law No. 2005-102 of 11 February 2005 on equal opportunities and the integration of disabled 

persons (Loi No. 2005-102 du 11 février 2005 pour l'égalité des droits et des chances, la participation et la 
citoyenneté des personnes handicapées), available at: 
www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=SANX0300217L (accessed 6 September 2016). 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
translates  the  terms  ‘reasonable  accommodation’  as  ‘all  necessary  measures’  (mesures 
nécessaires).  The  obligation  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation,  defined  in  Article  L 
5213-6 LC does not find application in reference to the situation of a person meeting the 
general  definition  of  disability  in  Article  L1141-1  of  the  Code  of  Social  Welfare,  but  is 
subject  to  the  additional  requirement  that  the  disabled  worker  form  part  of  the  group 
targeted  by  the  employers’  employment  quota  obligation  and  listed  in  Article  L5212-13 
LC.  The  scope  of  the  right  to  reasonable  accommodation  was  not  amended  by  Law 
No.2008-496.  It  therefore  benefits  only  employees  who  have  obtained  official  disabled 
worker status from the relevant institution, those who have suffered an accident at work 
resulting  in  a  degree  of  disability  greater  than  10  %  and  who  receive  compensation  in 
this regard, those in receipt of disability pensions and disabled veterans. Therefore, non-
registered  disabled  people,  non-salaried  disabled  workers  and  disabled  people  who  are 
members  of  the  professions  are  still  not  covered  by  the  obligation  for  reasonable 
accommodation.  

The  French  Government  has  always  refused  to  amend  Articles  3142-1  ff.  of  the  Labour 
Code,  which  deny  leave  for  family  events  for  PACS  partners,  which  used  to  be  the  only 
form of union accessible to  same-sex partners. The adoption of  Law  No.2013-404  of 17 
May  2013  opening  access  to  marriage  to  same-sex  couples  puts  an  end  to  indirect 
discrimination resulting from rights and privileges reserved  for married couples, such as 
special  holidays,  which  were  held  to  be  indirectly  discriminatory  by  the  CJEU  on  12 
December  2013  in  the  case  of  Hay  v.  Crédit  Agricole,278  where  it  decided,  further  to  a 
referral  from  the  Court  of  Cassation  that,  if  marriage  is  not  accessible  to  same-sex 
partners,  a  salaried  employee  who  enters  into  a  contractual  union  with  a  same-sex 
partner  must  benefit  from  the  same  advantages  as  those  conferred  upon  his  or  her 
colleagues when they marry.  

11.2 Other issues of concern  

Anti-discrimination law continues to focus resistance on what is perceived as community-
based  analysis  of  social  tensions.  This  constitutes  the  core  of  very  strong  ideological 
objections  to  the  framework  of  anti-discrimination  law  within  the  central  state 
institutions. 

- 

The equality body 

The  rate  of  success  in  discrimination  cases  before  the  courts  has  significantly  improved 
with the contributions of the HALDE and the Defender of Rights. However, the capacity of 
the  Defender  of  Rights  to  fully  pursue  this  mission,  in  the  context  of  the  institutional 
reform that led to the merger of the HALDE, the Children’s Defender, the Public Service 
Ombudsman  and  the  National  Commission  on  Security  Ethics,  is  still  in  question,  since 
the  institution  has  to  set  institutional  priorities  among  a  number  of  topics  and  faces 
heavy pressure to cut resources. A decision to reduce communication budgets has had a 
direct impact on the visibility of the anti-discrimination mandate of the institution for the 
general  public.  In  2013,  however,  further  to  a  specific  outreach  strategy  on 
discrimination issues and the significant visibility of its actions in the context of the Roma 
crisis, anti-discrimination claims have returned to the levels recorded under the HALDE in 
2010, and these have picked up and increased by 27 % in 2015. 

- 

Difficulties in implementation and the training of judicial actors 

Non-discrimination law is a derogatory legal regime. It continues to be perceived by legal 
actors as foreign and the choice to analyse a situation with its mechanisms is considered 
by  all  levels  of  the  jurisdiction  as  a  means  of  undermining  national  law.  The  traditional 
formal  theory  of  equality,  the  concept  of  fault  in  civil  matters  and  the  supremacy  of 

278 CJEU, Hay v. Crédit Agricole, C-267/12, 12 December 2013. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Parliament  remain  the  ultimate  reference.  At  trial level,  the  shift  in  the  burden  of  proof 
and  the  concept  of  indirect  discrimination  are  perceived  as  means  to  condemn  liability 
without fault and to confer special rights to members of certain groups. Finally, at policy 
level, it is a limitation on sovereignty that judges are not willing to use frequently.  

Even though it has been implemented by the higher courts and has evolved over the last 
ten years, lawyers in general practice and first instance judges often lack proper training 
to  implement  its  rules  of  evidence,  the  latest  jurisprudential  developments  and  the 
particulars of its rhetoric. Claimants still have to be ready to face multiple appeals before 
winning  their  cases.  Discrimination  cases  are  much  more  favourably  heard  at  the 
appellate level and the rate of success before the courts has been significantly improved 
by the contribution of observations presented by the HALDE and the Defender of Rights. 

There remain many barriers to systematic implementation in France. Legal action is still 
not  considered  as  a  means  of  advocacy  by  civil  society.  Very  few  NGOs  are 
knowledgeable  in  the  management  of  judicial  remedies279  or  have  the  means  to  pursue 
judicial cases. Implementing anti-discrimination law progresses with the evolution in the 
practice of judicial actors and in the way NGOs and trade unions perceive their functions 
in the judicial process and social dialogue, but technical progress and  financing remains 
necessary  to  ensure  efficient  implementation.  Funding  of  NGOs  and  trade  unions  to 
pursue test cases and targeted training of judges, lawyers, trade unions and NGOs in this 
regard is a long-term process that remains indispensable.  

Indirect discrimination is still a misunderstood concept that is seldom argued by lawyers, 
and often directly invoked by the court unilaterally,280 and only once in a case relating to 
discrimination on the ground of origin.281 

The  national  equality  body  works  together  with  the  legal  profession  to  ensure  that  the 
anti-discrimination  law  is  addressed  in  the  continuing  professional  training  of  lawyers, 
labour court non-professional judges and professional judges. However, evidence law and 
anti-discrimination  law  are  not  substantial  subjects  in  law  school,  and  the  subject 
remains a field of specialists. 

The  Government  is  still  focusing  resources  and  energy  on  the  implementation  of  anti-
discrimination law before the  criminal courts in the National Action Plan against Racism, 
reiterating the policy put in place in July 2007. This instituted a dedicated service to treat 
criminal discrimination complaints at the public prosecutor’s office,  with the objective  of 
increasing the rate of criminal prosecutions. However, to date, this policy has generated 
little  activity:  few  anti-discrimination  services  are  active  and  they  have  not  led  to  an 
increase in the number of criminal convictions.  

- 

Extensive interpretation of secularism in employment 

The scrutiny of French politics of the right to express one’s religious beliefs is constantly 
reiterated through various parliamentary bills seeking to limit free expression of religion. 

In  addition,  these  tensions  are  finding  echoes  before  national  courts  in  arguments 
promoting the idea of extending the duty of neutrality of public servants to private sector 
employees.  This  tension  was  translated  in  2013  through  the  conflict  between  the  Social 

279  In the fields covered by the non-discrimination directives, including discrimination based on sex, there are 
only two NGOs specialised in bringing legal action. The first is active in the sector of sexual and moral 
harassment: the Association to Combat Violence against Women (Association contre la violence faite aux 
femme, AVFT)-). The second focuses on the legal rights of foreign nationals: the Migrant’s Information and 
Support Group (Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés, GISTI). More generalist NGOs mostly 
intervene in criminal actions, but do not focus their activity on legal actions. 

280  The first case concluding indirect discrimination, where it was raised by the Court of Cassation, Social 

Chamber, No. 05-04962, 9 January 2007.  

281  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, No. 10-20765, 3 November 2011. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Chamber of the Court of Cassation282 and the Versailles and Paris Courts of Appeal in the 
Baby  Loup  case,  regarding  possible  limitations  to  the  duty  of  neutrality  of  private 
employees  working  in  a  day-care  centre  by  reason  of  its  ethos  and  belief.283  This  case 
was  heard  again  by  the  plenary  session  of  the  Court  of  Cassation,  which  issued  its 
decision on 25 June 2014.284  

In  this  case,  the  Social  Chamber  of  the  Court  of  Cassation  decided  that  the  principle  of 
secularism affirmed in Article 1 of the Constitution was not applicable to employees in the 
private sector who are not in a position of managing a public service. It therefore cannot 
be invoked by a private employer to hinder the protection against direct discrimination on 
the ground of religion afforded by the Labour Code in Article L. 1132-1. The provision of 
in-house regulations that imposed a general and imprecise restriction did not comply with 
the  requirements  of  Article  L.  1321-3  of  the  Labour  Code,  a  dismissal  decided  on 
discriminatory grounds was considered null and void and the Court of Appeal of Versailles 
decision  was  quashed.  The  case  was  sent  back  before  another  Court  of  Appeal  to  be 
argued again. 

In  plenary  session,  the  Court  of  Cassation  decided  that  France  had  transposed  the 
possibility  offered  by  Article  4  of  Directive  2000/78/EC  to  create  an  exception  in  its 
legislation  based  on  a  genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirement  by  copying 
paragraph  4  of  the  directive.  However,  the  French  legislator  only  adopted  a  list  of  jobs 
that  were  not  subject  to  the  protection  against  discrimination  in  relation  to  sex 
discrimination  in  1983.  It  has  not  adopted  such  a  list  in  relation  to  other  grounds. 
Furthermore, France has not adopted an exception based on ethos and belief pursuant to 
Article  4(1)  of  the  directive.  In  this  context,  the  plenary  session  of  the  court  refused  to 
consider that the law provided for a possibility to argue occupational requirement and it 
does  not  even  discuss  whether  neutrality  can  be  argued  to  constitute  an  occupational 
requirement exception. 

The court chose not to contradict the Conseil d’Etat and ruled out all arguments holding 
that the principle of secularism is applicable to private employers. It further decided that 
the  day  care  centre  was  not  an  organisation  with  an  ethos  and  belief  to  be  protected 
pursuant to Article 9 ECHR, since its main purpose  was not to promote or hold religious 
convictions, but to provide care for young children. 

The  plenary  session  of  the  Court  of  Cassation  did  not  discuss  whether  or  not  this  was 
discrimination,  direct  or  indirect,  and  whether  or  not  it  was  justified.  It  followed  an 
altogether  different  justification  to  conclude  that  the  claimant’s  dismissal  was  legal, 
based on legitimate restrictions to a fundamental freedom. 

Its analysis followed one of the arguments of the Paris Court of Appeal and discussed the 
issue  on  the  basis  of  the  only  legislative  path  available  in  French  legislation:  that  of 
legitimate restrictions to rights and freedoms that can be imposed by an employer on the 
basis  of  Articles  L1121-1  and  L1321-3  of  the  Labour  Code,  through  the  adoption  of  in-
house  regulations.  The  Court  transformed  its  analysis  into  a  pure  question  of  facts 
relating to the evaluation of whether or not these restrictions were legitimate, given the 
circumstances  of  the  execution  of  the  employment  contract  on  the  basis  of  evidence 
presented.  The  Court  held  that  regarding  the  size  and  operating  conditions  of  the  day 
care  centre,  where  all  the  employees  were  in  direct  contact  with  the  parents  and  the 
children,  the  employer  demonstrated  that  the  proposed  limitation  to  religious  freedom 
was,  in  this  case,  justified  by  the  nature  of  the  function  and  proportionate  to  the 
legitimate objective pursued. The Court limited its analysis to these considerations on the 

282  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, No. 11-28845, 19 March 2013. 
283  Versailles Court of Appeal, Baby Loup, No. 10/05642, 27 November 2011. 
284  Court of Cassation, Plenary session, Baby Loup, No. 13-28369, 25 June 2014.  

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
merits of the functions and the context of employment to appreciate the legitimacy of a 
limitation to a freedom pursuant to the Labour Code. 

Since this decision, the Senate adopted in its first reading a Senator’s legislative proposal 
to extend the duty of neutrality to private facilities catering for children and young people 
under 18 years of age. This bill was struck from the agenda of the National Assembly.285 

In  April  2015,  the  Court  of  Cassation  heard  a  case  where  a  claimant  who  working  as  a 
consultant in the private sector was dismissed for the sole reason of refusing to remove 
her  Islamic  veil  when  working  on  the  client’s  premises.  Her  claim  of  discriminatory 
dismissal  on  the  ground  of  religion  was  dismissed  by  the  Employment  Tribunal  and  the 
Paris Court of Appeal. 

Before the Court of Cassation, the claimant alleged that restrictions to religious freedom 
must  be  justified  by  the  nature  of  the  work  and  be  required  as  a  determining 
occupational  requirement  and  that  the  fact  of  wearing  an  Islamic  veil  when  working  in 
the private sector does not violate the rights or beliefs of others, and that the discomfort 
of  persons  toward  the  Islamic  veil  does  not  qualify  as  a  non-discriminatory  reason 
justifying  a  limitation  on  claimant’s  religious  freedom.  Therefore,  she  argued  that  the 
Court of Appeal of Paris has violated  Articles L. 1121-1, L. 1321-3 and L. 1132-1 of the 
Labour Code, Articles 9 and 14 of the ECHR and Article 18 of the International Covenant 
on Civil and Political Rights. Given that the CJEU had not yet decided whether the desire 
of  private  clients  not  to  be  served  by  someone  wearing  an  Islamic  veil  qualifies  as  a 
determining  occupational  requirement  related  to  the  nature  or  the  conditions  of 
performance  of  the  working  contract,  the  Court  of  Cassation286  referred  the  question  to 
the CJEU, in the case Asma Bougnaoui and Association de defense des droits de l’homme 
v. Micropole SA.287 

Meanwhile,  in  autumn  2014,  the  new  Minister  of  Education,  Najat  Vallaud  Belkacem, 
ended  the  controversy  around  the  prevention  of  mothers  wearing  a  Muslim  headscarf 
from  accompanying  state  school  children  on  out-of-school  excursions,  further  to  a 
decision  by  the  Montreuil  Administrative  Court.288  This  position  was  adopted  after  the 
publication of the opinion of the Conseil d’Etat, further to a request from the Defender of 
Rights, where it reiterated that the right to freedom of religion for accompanying mothers 
should  be  respected  and  that  the  proportionality  of  limitations  imposed  on  the  basis  of 
local circumstances should be examined on a case-by-case basis.289 

- 

Significant increase in hate speech and violent manifestations of  Islamophobia and 
anti-Semitism 

The French authorities can be observed to have made considerable efforts to promote the 
action  plan  against  racism  and  anti-Semitism  as  mentioned  above  (see  section  9)  to 
organise  a  proportionate  and  democratic  response  to  xenophobic  reactions  to  terrorist 
violence  and  the  geopolitical  context,  which  is  exploited  by  extreme  right  populist 
politicians.  Nevertheless,  this  context  is  having  a  significant  impact  on  the  number  of 
discriminatory  responses  in  relation  to  access  to  employment  and  access  to  goods  and 
services experienced by people of foreign origin. 

285  http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/dossiers/laicite_structures_petite_enfance.asp. 
286  Court of Cassation, No.13-19855, 9 April 2015. 

https://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/chambre_sociale_576/630_9_31521.html. 

287  CJEU, C-188/15, Asma Bougnaoui and Association de defense des droits de l’homme v. Micropole SA. 
288  Montreuil Administrative Court, No. 1012015, 22 November 2011. 
289  Conseil d’Etat, Plenary session, 23 December 2013, Study adopted on the request of the Defender of Rights 

by the Plenary Assembly of the Conseil d’Etat on 19 December 2013, available at: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr//fr/publications/etudes/application-du-principe-de-neutralite-religieuse-dans-
les-services-publics-etude (accessed 6 September 2016). 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 

Disability 

The  Law  on  Disability  No.2005-102  of  11  February  2005  provides,  in  addition  to 
accessibility  of  new  buildings,  for  the  obligation  to  proceed  with  the  necessary  works  in 
order  to  ensure  accessibility  of  ‘buildings  receiving  the  public’  (établissements  recevant 
du public) and of existing public transport, within a  deadline of 10 years (i.e. 1 January 
and 13 February 2015). 

Due  to  delays  in  implementing  the  law  and  the  impossibility  of  abiding  by  the  planned 
schedule,  on  26  February  2014  the  Prime  Minister  confirmed  the  postponement  of  the 
2015 deadline for ‘buildings receiving the public’ and public transport.  

Law  No.  2014-789  of  10  July  2014  authorising  the  Government  to  adopt  legislative 
measures  for  the  implementation  of  the  accessibility  of  public  places  enabled  the 
Government  to  determine  the  conditions  and  schedule  for  the  implementation  of 
accessibility  for  disabled  persons  in  relation  to  ‘buildings  receiving  the  public’,  public 
transport, residential buildings and roads. Decrees adopted in application thereto provide 
for extensions that can vary from three months to five years. 

This  delay  postpones  the  prosecution  and  issuing  of  sanctions  provided  by  the  law  of 
2005  beyond  1  January  2015.  The  Government  has  given  assurances  to  stakeholders 
representing disabled people that this schedule will be closely managed and enforced and 
that  it  would  ensure  the  effectiveness  of  the  accessibility  programme  promoted  by  the 
Law of 2005. However, the mobilisation of public building and public transport managers 
and  the  lobbying  of  mayors  for  the  postponement  of  the  initial  timetable  of  works  have 
generated considerable distrust on the part of representatives of disabled people towards 
public operators and political actors in relation to the enforcement of this timetable. 

With regard to education, the integration of disabled children into the education system 
and access to  education is constantly improving from one year to the next,  reaching an 
overall increase of 80 %. However, some children with particular kinds of disabilities still 
face  inadequate  access  to  education  and  once  again,  on  11  September  2013,  in  case 
No. 81.2012, published in January 2014, the European Committee of Social Rights issued 
a decision alerting France  to the inadequacy  of the measures taken to  ensure access to 
mainstream and special education for autistic children in France. 

- 

Travellers and Roma 

Travellers.  

The  French  Traveller  population’s  rate  of  school  attendance  remains  extremely  low  and 
illiteracy rates among the community have been systematically growing since compulsory 
military  service  was  discontinued  (10  years  ago),  which  had  fulfilled  the  function  of 
providing young men with basic reading and writing skills. Many mayors overtly refuse to 
register Traveller and Roma children  for school on the ground  of  their illegal occupation 
of  land.  This  is  theoretically  opposed  by  the  Government  (Ministerial  Instruction  No. 
2012-143 of 2 October 2012), but most mayors are also MPs, and even when education 
authorities  or  prefects  intervene,  they  often  refuse  to  abide  by  the  demands  of 
Government authorities. 

The  reforms  on  the  status  of  Travellers,  further  to  the  decision  of  the  Constitutional 
Council of 5 October 2012,290 quashing Law 69-2 regulating their status and rights, have 
been  on  the  legislative  agenda  since  2012.  Given  the  Government’s  failure  to  reform 

290  Constitutional Council, No 2012-279, 5 October, 2012, available at:http://www.conseil-

constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-
1959/2012/2012-279-qpc/decision-n-2012-279-qpc-du-05-octobre-2012.115699.html (accessed 6 
September 2016). 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
their  status  and  take  measures  to  address  their  difficulties  regarding  occupation  of 
private  land  (terrains  familiaux)  with  their  caravans  –  despite  a  number  of  convictions 
against  this  derogatory  status  since  2012  (in  2013  by  the  European  Court  of  Human 
Rights and the European Committee of Social Rights, and the 2014 decisions by the UN 
Human  Rights  Committee  of  28  March  2014291  and  the  Conseil  d’Etat  of  19  November 
2014292 (see below)) – the Defender of Rights adopted a decision to formally request that 
Parliament  and  the  Government  proceed  with  making  the  necessary  legislative 
reforms.293  The  issue  is  whether  this  reform  will  address  problems  related  to  the 
Travellers’  daily  lives  with  regard  to  long-term  occupation  of  private  land  (terrains 
familiaux)  and  travelling  with  their  caravans.  Urban  planning  regulations  are 
systematically used as a justification for evictions, refusing to register children at school 
and refusing to connect facilities to water and electricity supplies. The National Assembly 
has  passed  in  first  reading  on  9  June  2015,  a  parliamentary  legislative  proposal  of  the 
socialist  group,  to  repeal  Law  No.  69-3  regulating  Travellers,  thereby  putting  an  end  to 
their  obligation  to  carry  special  identity  papers  and  to  have  them  validated.294  The  law 
has not yet been voted on by the Senate in first reading.  

Roma.  

Since  the  June  2012  national  elections  in  France,  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  has 
intensified  the  previous  policy  of  evictions  for  illegal  land  occupation.  A  Ministerial 
Instruction  was  published  on  28  August  2012,  putting  in  place  a  policy  anticipating  the 
dismantling of illegal camps, in order to implement humanitarian conditions in relation to 
access to housing, education and social rights in the context of each eviction of Travellers 
and Roma from illegally occupied land. In autumn 2013, the Government opened a EUR 
4 million  fund  to  finance  integration  measures  for  families  who  are  deemed  able  to  be 
integrated,  while  pursuing  its  eviction  policy.  Data  on  the  impact  of  this  policy  are  not 
available, since there are no ethnic data in France and therefore no specific statistics on 
Roma. However, NGOs estimate that the number  of foreign Roma on French territory is 
stable, regardless of the Government’s expulsion policy, since families keep coming back 
after expulsion.  

The  DIHAL  (Interministerial  Delegation  on  Emergency  Accommodation  and  Access  to 
Housing), for homeless people and people with inadequate housing, was given a mandate 
to coordinate the state’s policy on the integration of Roma and Travellers without housing 
and resources, and to  put in place the conditions  to allow the proper implementation of 
the  Ministerial  Instruction  of  28  August  2012.  The  Prefect  who  held  this  position,  Alain 
Régnier,  resigned  in  July  2014,  in  the  face  of  the  absence  of  political  will  to  fight 
discrimination  and  facilitate  the  integration  of  Roma.  He  was  replaced  by  Sylvain 
Mathieu. 

- 

Racial discrimination 

More cases reach trial and are successful but they mainly concern direct discrimination in 
criminal or labour cases on the grounds of sex, age and disability,295 relating to access to 
housing and employment.  

Evidence  of  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  origin  can  benefit  from  comparative  panels 
establishing  a  difference  in  treatment  between  persons  on  the  basis  of  their  origin 

291  UN Human Rights Committee, 10th session, No 1960/2010, Ory vs France, 28 March 2014. 
292  Conseil d’Etat, No. 359223, 19 November 2014. 
293  Defender of Rights, Decision MLD 2014-152 of 24 November 2014. 
294  Parliamentary legislative proposal No. 1610 to repeal Law No. 69-3 regulating Travellers, 
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/ta/ta0526.asp (accessed 6 September 2016). 

295  Lanquetin, M.-T., Grevy, M. (2005) Bilan de la mise en oeuvre de la loi du 16 novembre 2001 (Audit of the 

impact of the Law of 16 November 2001), rapport final DPM.  

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
inferred from the employees’ surname.296 However, this depends on the availability of  a 
sufficient number  of employees and  candidates to build a  comparative panel, and these 
are seldom available in cases of racial and ethnic discrimination in access to employment. 
In  France  legal  action  is  not  an  effective  means  of  redress  in  cases  of  racial 
discrimination.  

- 

Access to old age pensions for older migrant workers 

Article  L815-1  of  the  Code  of  Social  Security  holds  that  anyone  residing  regularly  and 
continuously  in  France  and  having  reached  the  age  of  retirement,  i.e.  62,  can  benefit 
from the old age allocation. This allocation is aimed particularly at migrant workers who 
have been denied old age pensions because their employers have failed to contribute. 

However,  since  2007,  Article  L816-1  also  requires  that  the  non-French  national  be  in  a 
position  to  establish  that  they  have  resided  continuously  and  regularly  in  France  with 
authorisation to work for 5 years and, since 2012, for 10 years.  

Establishing proof of regular residence and presence for a period of 10 years is very often 
de  facto  impossible  for  older  migrant  workers,  who  have  been  encouraged  to  return  to 
their  home  countries  for  part  of  the  year  by  the  authorities:  they  are  often  practically 
illiterate, French  customs seldom stamp their passports and they do not file income tax 
returns due to a lack of sufficient resources. These new rules have been used to suspend 
payment  of  social  security  to  older  migrant  workers.  Payments  are  therefore  often 
suspended,  sums  paid  are  claimed  back  and  older  migrants  find  themselves  in 
complicated  situations  where  they  are  unable  to  establish  their  continuous  presence  in 
France for a period of 10 years.  

- 

Homophobia 

The adoption of the legislation authorising marriage for same-sex couples has given rise 
to a significant traditional, religious, family rights political lobby called  ’Manifestation for 
all’, which also campaigns against adoption by gay couples and recognition of civil rights 
for  children  born  through  surrogate  motherhood  abroad.  However,  this  movement  has 
not  translated  into  an  increase  in  the  number  of  complaints  alleging  homophobia  in 
employment or access to goods and services before the Defender of Rights or before the 
courts. 

- 

Sanctions 

While  the  law  provides  for  integral  compensation,  in  the  absence  of  punitive  damages, 
the difficulty of establishing damages regarding access to goods and services or access to 
employment often limits the awards of the courts to symbolic moral damages.  

In criminal cases, the law provides for fines, which can reach EUR 45 000, but in practice 
fines  are  extremely  low.  Convictions  can  lead  to  fines  as  low  as  EUR  250  for  refusal  to 
admit a person wearing a Muslim headscarf to a gym, and rarely reach more than a few 
thousand Euros.  

296  Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, Airbus Operations SAS, No. K 10-15873, 15 December 2011. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2015 

12.1 Legislative amendments 

- 

Law No. 2015-1776 of 28 December 2015 creating the ground of loss of autonomy,  
Article 23). 

12.2 Case law 

Name of the court: Court of Cassation  
Date of decision: 17 March 2015 
Name  of  the  parties:  X  v.  National  Ski  Instructors’  Union  (Syndicat  national  des 
moniteurs du ski français) 
Reference number: No. 13-27142 
Address of the webpage:  
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEX
T000030383142&fastReqId=964259005&fastPos=50 
Brief  summary:  In  2012  the  National  Ski  Instructors’  Union  adopted  a  regulation 
limiting ski instructors’ activity after 62 years of age and favouring young recruits in the 
distribution of teaching classes in order to favour the activity of young instructors. Article 
L1133-2  of  the  Labour  Code  provides  that  maximum  age  limitations  do  not  constitute 
discrimination when they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, in 
order  to  favour  employment  policies,  the  employment  market  and  professional  training. 
The Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, the Supreme Court) decided that this internal 
rule violates Law No. 2008-496 of 28 May 2008 and does not meet the requirements of 
Article  6(1)(a)  of  Directive  2000/78  because  it  favours  the  purely  individual  private 
interests that are specific to ski schools and their concern to satisfy the requests of their 
clients, which therefore do not qualify as legitimate aims as provided by article L1133-2 
of the Labour Code. 

Name of the court: CJEU  
Date of decision: 26 March 2015 
Name of the parties: Gérard Fenoll v. Centre d’aide par le travail «La Jouvene» 
Reference number: No. C-316/13 
Address of the webpage: 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=fr&num=C-316/13 
Brief  summary:  The  claimant  attended  a  work-based  occupational  care  centre 
(Etablissement et service d’aide par le travail) from 1 February 1996 to 20 June 2005. He 
benefited  from  five  weeks’  paid  holidays  until  2004  when  he  fell  sick.  He  then  had  12 
remaining  days  to  take  for  2004  and  remained  on  sick  leave  for  a  year.  When  he 
resigned, the claimant requested to be paid, as any salaried employee, holidays  that he 
had not taken since 2004, to a value of EUR 945. The centre refused to pay. 

In French law, disabled persons attending these centres are not considered as employees 
and many provisions of the  Labour  Code do not apply to their occupation.  The claimant 
raised before the court that the minimal holidays claimed were mandatory in application 
of  Directive  2003/88  relating  to  certain  aspects  of  working  hours.  The  claimant’s  case 
was  dismissed  and  he  brought  it  before  the  Court  of  Cassation,  which  referred  the 
following prejudicial question to the CJEU: The issue is whether persons attending work- 
based occupational centres, who are not deemed employees by national law, benefit from 
the protection of workers afforded by EU Law and Directive 2003/88. 

The  CJEU  decided  that  Directive  2003/88  applied  to  persons  attending  work-based 
occupational centres as regards its provisions relating to working time, regardless of their 
worker status in national law. In order to define whether a disabled person with such an 
occupation  is  a  worker  according  to  EU  Law,  the  national  judge  must  take  into 
consideration  objective  parameters  and  all  circumstances  of  the  context  of  the  work 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
executed  and  the  relation  between  the  parties.  The  fact  that  persons  attending  these 
centres  are  not  subject  to  some  provisions  of  the  Labour  Code  is  not  a  determining 
factor.  Even  if  the  work  executed  in  these  centres  and  its  conditions  of  execution  are 
meant to accommodate a person’s disability, it has an economic value, is a paid activity, 
provides a person with social security and pursues the production of value. The fact that 
it is not subject to minimum wage and paid much less is not relevant. The applicable test 
is  whether  there  is  a  real  and  effective  production,  as  opposed  to  marginal  and  purely 
accessory, as was held in the case of a detox centre for addicts.297 

The  national  judge  must  therefore  verify  the  value  and  organisation  of  the  work  to 
determine if it comes within the realm of the employment market. 

The  CJEU  decision  did  not  discuss  whether  not  recognising  persons  attending  such 
occupational  centres  as  workers  was  discriminatory.  However,  this  decision  reaches 
beyond  European  Labour  Law  since  it  in  fact  extends  the  purview  of  the  protection 
against  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  disability  in  employment  to  disabled  persons 
performing  an  activity  in  an  occupational  centre  for  disabled  persons  and  the  scope  of 
their rights. Therefore, maintaining their present status and working conditions would be 
in many respects discriminatory on the ground of disability. 

Name of the court: Paris Court of Appeal  
Date of decision: 24 June 2015 
Name of the parties: N/A 
Reference number:  No. 348 – 13/24286, N) 347, 13/24284, No. 346, 13/24277, No. 
345,  13/24274,  No.  344,  13/24269,  No.  343,  13/24267,  No.  342,  13/24265,  No.  341, 
13/24262,  No.  340,  13/24261,  No.  351,  13/24303,  No.  350,  13/24300,  No.  349, 
13/24299, No. 339, 13/24255 
Address of the webpage: 
http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/fr/actions/protection-des-droits-
libertes/decision/decision-msp-mds-mld-2015-021-du-3-fevrier-2015 
Brief summary: Article 78 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows police 
forces  to  proceed  to  police  controls  without  cause  when  there  is  a  magistrate  order 
allowing controls on a specific day in a designated area, or in application of paragraph 3 
in  order  to  prevent  the  perpetration  of  a  crime.  These  provisions  are  widely  used  to 
control  illegal  immigrants  or  persons  living  in  unsecure  areas,  giving  rise  to  racial 
profiling.  In  the  absence  of  arrest,  there  is  no  procedure  to  trace  individual  police 
controls and the Code of Criminal Procedure does not explicitly provides for a remedy. 

This  is  the  first  decision  on  racial  profiling  in  France.  The  13  claimants  have  been 
subjected  to  identity  controls  and  searches  without  being  arrested.  In  this  context  their 
lawyers  requested  from  the  police  justification  for  the  controls  and  received  no  answer. 
On  this  basis  they  sued  the  state  in  civil  damages  for  liability  for  racial  profiling  in 
application of Article L141-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation. Civil liability of the state 
requires that intentional characteristic fault be established. 

The 13 cases were dismissed by the first instance court on the basis that the actions of 
the  police  officers,  who  acted  within  the  parameters  of  the  law,  could  not  give  rise  to 
liability of the  state.  The Defender  of  Rights presented  observations before the Court  of 
Appeal  arguing  that  the  state  had  a  positive  obligation  to  take  action  to  prevent  police 
controls  based  on  racial  grounds  and  to  ensure  effective  access  to  judicial  redress  in 
application  of  the  Constitution  and  of  Articles  5,  8,  13,  14  and  15  of  the  ECHR.  The 
Defender of Rights’ observations were followed by the Court of Appeal who admitted the 
appeals in 5 of the 13 cases, even if all controls were legal and made under the authority 
of a magistrate order.  

297  CJEU, Bettray v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie, C-344/87, EU: C:1989:226; Trojani, C-456/02, 

EU:C:2004:488. 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The Paris Court of Appeal held that police controls must be implemented with respect for 
fundamental  rights  and  the  principle  of  equal  treatment,  which  cannot  allow  police 
controls operated on the basis of racial criteria, physical appearance or origin. The  state 
must  not  only  refrain  from  discrimination  but  must  take  all  necessary  measures  to 
prevent its occurrence. In order to be effective the protection of the court must allow the 
claimant to demonstrate the fault. In the absence of any mechanism to trace and report 
the  circumstances  of  police  controls,  once  the  circumstances  of  the  control  are 
established by the claimant, the police authorities must be in a position to justify why the 
control  of  this  person  or  this  profile  of  population  chosen  by  reason  of  physical 
appearance or origin, is justified. In the absence of such evidence, even in the absence of 
evidence  that  police  behaviour  was  inadequate,  police  controls  based  on  a  selection  on 
discriminatory grounds constitute an aggravated fault that triggers liability of the state. 

The  existence  of  racial  profiling  is  known  to  be  a  widespread  practice.  However  the 
claimant  has  to  establish  the  discriminatory  circumstances  of  the  police  control.  These 
circumstances  can  be  established  by  simple  written  statements  of  witnesses,  which  will 
trigger the obligation of the state to justify the legitimacy of the control. 

The Court has found discrimination in situations where a witness was able to describe a 
systematic discriminatory selection process exclusively targeting persons of North African 
or African origin. The civil court awarded EUR 1 500 in damages to the five claimants who 
had  their  action  in  damages  admitted.  However  the  identities  of  the  policemen  were 
never  confirmed  by  the  state  and  the  civil  court  has  no  power  to  order  disciplinary 
sanctions. However it accepted the police justification where the controls were based on 
a  search  for  a  person  of  North  African  origin  who  had  just  committed  a  robbery,  where 
the person subject to the control was in an insecure neighbourhood, running and hiding 
his  face  with  the  hood  of  his  sweatshirt,  and  for  controls  in  a  place  known  for  massive 
violence and drug dealing. 

The state has made a petition before the Court of Cassation. 

Name of the court: Paris Employment Tribunal 
Date of decision: 21 September 2015 
Name  of  the  parties:  Decisions  relating  to  832  Migrant  workers  v.  French  National 
Railway Company (SNCF) 
Reference number: RG No.F 05/12309 and following 
Address of the webpage: N/A 
Brief  summary:  In  the  1970s,  SNCF  (the  French  National  Railway  Company)  hired 
2 000  Moroccan  employees  to  fill  unskilled  positions  at  the  lowest  level  of  the  worker’s 
scale. However they were not hired under the same conditions as the French employees, 
the regulatory status of the SNCF imposing a requirement of French  nationality in order 
for  someone  to  be  hired  under  the  permanent  employee  status.  Moroccan  employees 
were  hired  as  contractual  agents  under  a  specific  status,  PS25,  which  was  used  for 
temporary employees and for persons holding a list of jobs that were not covered by the 
statutory  regime.  The  claimants  spent  all  of  their  careers  at  SNCF.  Their  specific 
employment conditions were less favourable than those applicable to  French  permanent 
employees:  they  did  not  have  access  to  career  development  beyond  a  certain  level  of 
lower execution jobs (only 2 % of French employees holding the permanent status ended 
their  career  at  these  levels),  these  jobs  were  more  physically  strenuous  (which  had  an 
impact  on  their  physical  condition  at  retirement),  lower  salary  scale,  less  favourable 
overtime  conditions  and  less  favourable  retirement  conditions  in  terms  of  period  of 
service  and  age  requirements  for  access  to  a  full  pension,  financial  conditions  of 
retirement and financial conditions of their widows pension rights (an average of EUR 300 
per  month).  Although  half  of  the  2  000  Moroccan  employees  became  French  citizens, 
only 113 obtained  the permanent  employee  status reserved to French citizens, while all 
the other Moroccan employees hired in the 1970s kept the PS25 status. 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  850  claimants  filed  suit  after  retirement,  claiming  damages  for  their  career  and 
retirement conditions. 

SNCF argued that the various legal instruments prohibiting discrimination on the ground 
of  origin  were  not  in  force  in  France  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  contracts  and 
during the period covering part of their execution, that Article 14 of the ECHR could not 
apply and that the claims were time barred after a period of 30 years after the signature 
of the contracts. Furthermore it claimed that  the claimants could not be held to be in a 
comparable situation as employees hired under the permanent employee status because 
they did not carry out the same jobs, and that the requirement of French nationality was 
authorised  by  rules  applicable  to  requirements  related  to  the  exercise  of  national 
sovereignty, and that therefore it could not give rise to the liability of SNCF. 

The  Employment  Tribunal  adopted  standardized  decisions  and  reasonings  in  all  850 
cases, which are very poorly legally motivated, thus the reasoning refers to International 
conventions  without  exhaustive  justifications  and  substantive  reasoning.  Therefore  our 
summary may seem incomplete but it strictly realtes the Tribunal’s reasonning.  

It decided that the prescription applicable was 30 years at the time the claim was filed, 
which  only  starts  running  once  the  claimant  is  aware  of  the  damage.  When  damages 
claimed  relate  to  a  succession  of  situations  over  time,  it  starts  running  once  the 
situations  are  terminated,  i.e.  at  the  time  of  interruption  of  the  employment  contract, 
and retirement. 

As  regards  the  application  of  international  conventions,  France  ratified  the  ILO 
Convention No. 111 in 1981, and the prohibition of discrimination in the Labour Code was 
only adopted in 1982. The Franco Mediterranean Convention entered into force in 2000. 
Therefore  they  will  only  be  applicable  for  the  period  after  they  entered  into  force.  It  is 
worth noting that the court explicitly found that the ILO Convention No. 111, and Article 
14 of the ECHR were applicable to raise the illegality of regulations limiting access to the 
general  employment  status  to  French  citizens,  as  well  as  general  principles  of  anti-
discrimination  provided  by  EU  law  without  referring  to  any  precise  legal  provision.  In 
addition,  the  employment  contract  provided  for  a  provision  of  equal  remuneration 
(covering  accessory  advantages)  with  French  employees  holding  similar  employment. 
The court holds that jobs covered by employment status PS25 were comparable to those 
held by French employees, but were only designated otherwise in order to employ foreign 
employees  under  another  employment  status  and  meet  the  formal  requirements  of  the 
two  employment  statuses.  SNCF  could  not  prove  that  the  activities  of  the  French 
employees holding comparable jobs related to exercise of sovereignty justifying a distinct 
status reserved to French nationals. 

Therefore,  the  claimants’  employment  status  constitutes  direct  discrimination  on  the 
ground of nationality and the criteria of nationality  is the basis of indirect discrimination 
on the ground of the origin of these non-national migrant workers. Claims were admitted, 
except  in  a  few  cases,  and  the  claimants’  damages  range  from  EUR  150 000  to 
EUR 250 000. SNCF has appealed before the Paris Court of Appeal. 

Name of the court: Court of Cassation, Criminal chamber 
Date of decision: 15 December 2015 
Name of the parties: EasyJet v. Gianmartini et al. 
Reference number: No. 13-81586 
Address of the webpage: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEX
T000031658282&fastReqId=2131939514&fastPos=2 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Brief  summary:  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2006298  forbids  air  transport 
carriers  from  refusing to board a disabled person on the ground of disability or  reduced 
mobility. However Article 4 provides that an air carrier may refuse boarding  ‘in order to 
meet applicable safety requirements established by international, Community or national 
law or in order to meet safety requirements established by the authority that issued the 
air operator's certificate to the air carrier concerned’.  

In  the  absence  of  precise  regulations  defining  ‘applicable  safety  requirements’  some  air 
transport  carriers  have  implemented  restrictive  policies  that  result  in  systematically 
requiring  disabled  persons  with  reduced  mobility  to  be  accompanied,  thereby  refusing 
boarding to unaccompanied disabled persons with reduced mobility. 

EasyJet adopted such a policy, formally instructing its subcontractor who took care of the 
boarding in Paris Charles De Gaulle Airport, to systematically refuse boarding to disabled 
unaccompanied  travellers  because  the  flight  personnel  are  ‘not  trained  to  manage  and 
assist disabled persons’.  

Three disabled persons who were denied the right to board on the ground that they were 
not accompanied filed criminal complaints against EasyJet. 

On 13 January 2012, the Bobigny Correctional Court found that the systematic refusal of 
the company to allow unaccompanied disabled persons to board a plane without verifying 
their concrete capacity to travel alone in consideration of safety requirements constitutes 
discrimination on the ground of disability. EasyJet appealed this decision. In a decision of 
5 February 2013, the Court of Appeal of Paris maintained the Bobigny Correctional Court 
decision  of  13  January  2012,  and  sentenced  EasyJet  to  a  fine  of  EUR  70 000  and  to 
publish the decision in the newspaper, Le Monde. The subcontracting operating company 
was  sentenced  to  a  fine  of  EUR  25 000.  Both  companies  were  also  jointly  ordered  to 
compensate the claimants to the amount of EUR 2 000 each in damages and a symbolic 
EUR  1  to  the  NGO  Association  des  Paralysés  de  France.  The  Court  of  Cassation 
maintained  the  position  of  the  Court  of  Appeal.  The  decision  not  to  train  its  personnel, 
and  the  systematic  refusal  of  the  company  to  allow  disabled  persons  to  board  a  plane 
without  verifying  their  concrete  capacity  to  travel  alone  constitutes  an  overall  policy 
based  on  disability.  Considering  that  industry  practice  shows  that  other  companies 
provide  such  assistance  to  disabled  persons,  the  airline  and  its  subcontractor  executing 
its  instructions  cannot  use  the  personnel  restrictions  argument  to  justify  these  security 
requirements  and  systematically  to  refuse  a  service  to  disabled  persons  without 
committing discrimination. In addition, Article 11 of the European Regulation provides for 
an obligation on the part of air transport carriers to train their personnel, which has been 
transposed  in  French  regulations  by  Decree  No.  2008-1445  of  22  December  2008,  and 
sanctioned  by  an  administrative  fine.  The  Court  of  Cassation  specifically  states  that  the 
European regulation does not provide for a safety requirement denying access to persons 
on the ground of disability, and  EasyJet did not establish the existence of such  a safety 
standard recognised by national or international authorities.  

Name of the court: Amiens Administrative Tribunal  
Date of decision: 15 December 2015 
Name of the parties: N/A 
Reference number: n° 1401803 
Address of the webpage: N/A 
Brief  summary:  The  academic  director  of  the  Amiens  educational  district  issued  an 
instruction on 4 December 2013 ordering school principals of a certain town to refuse the 
participation  in  school  activities  of  all  mothers  wearing  an  Islamic  veil.  The  petitioner 
requested  that  this  instruction  be  annulled  on  the  ground  of  its  illegality  and  claims 

298  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the 

rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air.  

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
damages for the refusals to her requests to accompany field trips of December 2013 and 
11 February 2014. 

The  Ministry  of  Education  admitted  that  article  L  141-5  of  the  Code  of  Education, 
prohibiting  students  from  exhibiting  religious  signs  within  the  school  environment  and 
premises,  is  not  applicable  to  parents.  The  Administrative  Tribunal  decided  that  even  if 
school authorities can, in specific circumstances, limit the expression of religious freedom 
in order to ensure the respect of public order, in the absence of an explicit legal text they 
are not subject to the strict obligation of neutrality imposed on personnel and students, 
and religious signs cannot be forbidden on a continuous basis. As regards the petitioner’s 
claim,  she  did  not  establish  before  the  court  that  she  had  submitted  requests  to 
accompany  field  trips  and  the  refusals  that  she  invokes,  therefore  her  claim  was 
dismissed. 

130 

 
 
  
 
 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION 

Please list below the main transposition and anti-discrimination legislation at both 
federal and federated/provincial level. 

Country: France 
Date: 31 December 2015 

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Law No.92-686 of 22 July 1992 adopting the new Penal Code 
Date of adoption: 22 July 1992 
Date of entry into force: 22 July 1992 
Latest  amendment:  Article  15  of  the  Law  No.2014-173  of  21  February 
2014 creating the ground of place of residence. 
Internet link:  
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT0000060
70719. 
Grounds protected: all grounds - sex, pregnancy, belonging, whether real 
or supposed to an ethnic origin, a nation, a race or a determined religion 
morals,  sexual  orientation,  sexual  identity,  age,  family  situation,  genetic 
characteristics,  physical  appearance,  last  name,  health,  disability,  union 
activities, political convictions, place of residence 
Criminal Law 

Material  scope:  hiring,  sanctions  and  dismissal,  access  to  professional 
training, goods and services 

Principal  content:  prohibition  of  intentional  discrimination  in  hiring 
sanctions,  dismissal,  access  to  professional  training  and  access  to  goods 
and services,   
Articles 225-1 and 225-2 and 432-7 PC 
Law on the press of 1881 
Date of adoption: 29 July 1881 
Date of entry into force: 29 July 1881 
Latest amendments: Law No.2010-1 of 4 January 2010  
Internet link: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006
070722&dateTexte=20080312 
Grounds  covered:  All  grounds  -  sex,  of  belonging,  whether  real  or 
supposed  to  an  ethnic  origin,  a  nation,  a  race  or  a  determined  religion, 
sexual  orientation,  age,  family  situation,  genetic  characteristics,  physical 
appearance,  last  name,  health,  disability,  union  activities,  political 
convictions 
criminal law 
Material scope: Discriminatory discourse in all situations 
Principal content: Provocation to discrimination as defined by article 225-
1 and 225-2 PC 
The  Law  on  the  HALDE  incorporates  prohibition  of  provocation  to 
discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation and disability 
Law  No.2001-  1066  of  16  November  2001  relating  to  the  fight  against 
discriminations 
Date of adoption: 16 November 2001 
Entry into force:16 November 2001 
Latest  amendments:  Article  15  of  the  Law  No.2014-173  of  21  February 
2014 creating the ground of place of residence. 
Internet link:  
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT00000058861
7&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id. 
Grounds  covered:  sex,  of  belonging,  whether  real  or  supposed  to  an 

131 

 
 
 
 
ethnic origin, a nation, a race or a determined religion, sexual orientation, 
age,  family  situation,  genetic  characteristics,  physical  appearance,  last 
name,  health,  disability,  union  activities,  political  convictions,  place  of 
residence 
Civil, administrative, criminal law 
Material  scope:  Salaried  employment,  civil  service  and  criminal  law 
(goods and services) However, it does not cover the status of Magistrates 
and public agents working within parliament. 
Principal  content:  prohibition  of  direct  and  indirect  discrimination, 
harassment  in  employment  and  in  criminal law  extension  of  the  grounds 
and powers of the Labour inspector 
Law of social modernisation No.2002-73 
Date of adoption: 17 January 2002 
Entry into force: 17 January 2002 
Latest amendments: Article 15 of the Law No.2014-366 of 24 March 2014 
adding the ground of age to the prohibition of discrimination in access of 
housing at article 1 
Internet link:  
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000
408905&categorieLien=id 
Grounds covered: All grounds 
Grounds:  sex,  pregnancy,  of  belonging,  whether  real  or  supposed  to  an 
ethnic origin, a nation, a race or a determined religion, sexual orientation, 
sexual  identity,  age,  family  situation,  genetic  characteristics,  physical 
appearance,  last  name,  health,  disability,  union  activities,  political 
convictions, place of residence 
Civil/administrative and criminal law 
Material scope: Private and public housing, Harassment 
Principal content: prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination in public 
and private housing 
Harassment in public and private employment 
Harassment in the Penal Code 
Law  no  2001-434  of  recognition  of  slavery  and  human  trade  as  crime 
against humanity 
Date of adoption: 23 May 2001 
Entry into force: 23 May 2001 
Latest amendments: none  
Internet link:  
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000
405369&categorieLien=id 
Grounds covered: race 
Criminal law 
Material scope: All forms of activity and employment 
Principal content: Recognize that slavery as it was practised in Africa and 
the Indian Ocean was a crime against humanity and support research and 
education on this part of French history 
Law  no  2005-102  of  February  11,  2005  for  equal  opportunities  and 
integration of disabled persons  
Date of adoption: 11 February 2005 
Entry into force: 11 February 2005 
Latest  amendments:  Law  no  2014-789  of  10  July,  2014  Habilitating 
Government to Adopt Legislative Measures by Way of Executive Order for 
the Implementation of Accessibility of Public Places 
Internet link: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000
809647 
Grounds covered: Disability 

132 

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

 
Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

link: 

Civil/administrative law 
Material scope: Employment, education, goods and services, 
social rights, access to health 
Principal content: Completes transposition vs/ reasonable accommodation 
duties  and  positive  action,  covers  employment  access  to  goods  and 
services, access to education and right to public support 
Law  no  2005-841  of  July  26,  2005  habilitating  the  Government  to  adopt 
emergency measures for employment by way of Governmental Decree:  
Date of adoption: 13 July 2005 
Entry into force: 27 July 2005 
Latest amendments: 7 March 2007 
Internet 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000
632799&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id 
Grounds covered: Age 
administrative law: 
Material scope: Employment public sector 
Principal content: Remove age limits for recruitment in the public sector 
Law  no  2008-496  of  May  27  2008  relating  to  the  adaptation  of  National 
Law to Community Law in matters of discrimination 
Date of adoption : 27 May 2008 
Date of entry into force: 27 May 2008 
Latest amendments: Article 23 of the Law n° 2015-1776 of 28 December 
2015 creating the ground of loss of autonomy. 
Internet link: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000018
877783 
Grounds covered: Article 19 TFEU  
Grounds:  Sex,  race,  ethnic  origin,  religion,  convictions,  age,  disability, 
loss  of  autonomy,  sexual  orientation,  sexual  identity,  and  place  of 
residence 
Civil. Administrative and criminal law 
Material scope: All fields: public employment, private employment, access 
to  goods  or  services  (including  housing),  social  protection,  social 
advantages, education 
Principal  content:  Correcting  implementation  of  directives  2000/43  and 
2000/78  by  providing  definitions  of  direct  and  indirect  discrimination, 
including  harassment  and  instructions  to  discriminate  to  the  definition  of 
discrimination,  completing  prohibition  of  retorsion  and  creating  new 
exceptions. 
Civil. Administrative and criminal law 
Material scope: All fields: public employment, private employment, access 
to  goods  or  services  (including  housing),  social  protection,  social 
advantages, education, civil rights 
Principal  content: 
administrative body in a unique Constitutional Independent Authority 
Title of the law: Organic Law no 2011-333 of 29 March 2011 creating the 
Defender of Rights. 
Abbreviation: N/A 
Date of adoption: 29 March 2011 
Entry into force: 29 March 2011 
Latest amendments: None 
Internet link: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000023
781167 
Grounds  protected:  sex,  pregnancy,  of  belonging,  whether  real  or 

Integrates  HALDE  with  other  human 

rights 

133 

 
Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

supposed  to  an  ethnic  origin,  a  nation,  a  race  or  a  determined  religion, 
sexual  orientation,  sexual 
family  situation,  genetic 
identity,  age, 
characteristics,  physical  appearance,  last  name,  health,  disability,  union 
activities,  political  convictions,  place  of  residence,  plus  grounds  covered 
by international conventions ratified by France 
Civil. Administrative and criminal law 
Material scope: All fields: public employment, private employment, access 
to  goods  or  services  (including  housing),  social  protection,  social 
advantages, education 
Principal content: Powers of the Equality Body 
Law No.2012-954 of 6 August 2012 relating to Sexual Harassment  
Date of adoption: 6 August 2012 
and entry into force: 6 August 2012 
Latest amendments: none 
Internet link: 
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000026
263463&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id 
Grounds covered: sex and sexual identity 
Civil. Administrative and criminal law 
Material scope: Public employment, private employment, access to goods 
or services (including housing) 
Principal  content:  reviewing  the  definition  of  sexual  harassment  and 
creating the ground of sexual identity at Article 4 

134 

 
 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 

Country: France  
Date: 31 December 2015 

Instrument  Date of 

Date of 
ratificatio
n (if not 
ratified 
please 
indicate) 
Dd.mm. 
yyyy 

signature  
(if not 
signed 
please 
indicate) 
Dd.mm. 
yyyy 
04.11.1950  03.05.1974  No 

Derogations. 
reservations 
relevant to 
equality and 
non-
discriminatio
n 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals? 

Yes 

Yes 

European 
Convention 
on Human 
Rights 
(ECHR) 
Protocol 12, 
ECHR 

Revised 
European 
Social 
Charter 

International 
Covenant on 
Civil and 
Political 
Rights 
Framework 
Convention 
for the 
Protection of 
National 
Minorities 
International 
Covenant on 
Economic, 
Social and 
Cultural 
Rights 

Convention 
on the 
Elimination 
of All Forms 
of Racial 
Discrimina-
tion 
Convention 
on the 
Elimination 

04.11.2004  No 

No 

No 

03.05.1996  07.05.1999  No 

16.12.1966  04.11.1980  Yes, article 13 
towards rights 
relating to the 
expulsion of 
foreigners 
N.A 

No 

No 

Ratified 
collective 
complaints 
protocol? 
Yes 
No 

No 

No 

No 

16.12.1966  04.11.1980  Yes, articles 6, 

No 

No 

9, 11 and 13 
must not be 
interpreted as 
limiting 
sovereignty 
over access to 
work and 
social rights of 
foreigners 

07.03.1966  28.07.1981  No 

No 

No 

18.12.1979  03.09.1981  No 

Yes 

Yes 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
Instrument  Date of 

signature  
(if not 
signed 
please 
indicate) 
Dd.mm. 
yyyy 

Date of 
ratificatio
n (if not 
ratified 
please 
indicate) 
Dd.mm. 
yyyy 

Derogations. 
reservations 
relevant to 
equality and 
non-
discriminatio
n 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals? 

of 
Discrimina-
tion Against 
Women 
ILO 
Convention 
No.111 on 
Discriminatio
n 
Convention 
on the Rights 
of the Child 

25.06.1958  15.06.1960  No 

No 

No 

Yes, some 
dispositions 
have been 
interpreted by 
the Conseil 
d’Etat as 
directly 
opposable to 
the State. CE, 
September 
22, 1997, 
GISTI, 

26.01.1990  06.09.1990  Yes, article 6 

Yes 

cannot be 
interpreted to 
limit the 
application of 
French law on 
abortion; 
Article 30 
cannot apply 
because of 
article 2 of 
The French 
constitution; 
Article 40 par 
2b)V shall be 
interpreted as 
a general 
principle to 
which limited 
exception can 
be opposed by 
way of 
legislation, 
such as for 
certain 
criminal 
infractions. 

30.03.2007  18.02.2010  No 

Yes 

Convention 
on the Rights 
of Persons 
with 
Disabilities  

Yes, some 
dispositions 
Could be 
interpreted as 
directly 
opposable to 
the State. 

136 

 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu)  

 
 
 
 
 
 
D
S
-
0
4
-
1
6
-
6
8
0
-
3
A
-
N

ISBN: 978-92-79-47000-4 

doi:10.2838/994903