IMPOSED UPON THE EMPLOYER WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THE DISCRIMINATION TO CONCLUDE A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CANDIDATE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST . ( B ) QUESTIONS 2 , 3 AND 4
20 IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ANSWER THE SECOND , THIRD AND FOURTH QUESTIONS SINCE THEY ARE PUT ONLY ON THE SUPPOSITION THAT AN EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO OFFER A POST TO THE CANDIDATE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST .
( C ) QUESTIONS 5 AND 61
21 IN ITS FIFTH QUESTION THE ARBEITSGERICHT ESSENTIALLY ASKS WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO INFER FROM THE DIRECTIVE ANY SANCTION IN THE EVENT OF DISCRIMINATION OTHER THAN THE RIGHT TO THE CONCLUSION OF A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT . QUESTION 6 ASKS WHETHER THE DIRECTIVE , AS PROPERLY INTERPRETED , MAY BE RELIED ON BEFORE NATIONAL COURTS BY PERSONS WHO HAVE SUFFERED INJURY .
22 IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH REAL EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY WITHOUT AN APPROPRIATE SYSTEM OF SANCTIONS . THAT FOLLOWS NOT ONLY FROM THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF THE DIRECTIVE BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY FROM ARTICLE 6 THEREOF WHICH , BY GRANTING APPLICANTS FOR A POST WHO HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST RECOURSE TO THE COURTS , ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THOSE CANDIDATES HAVE RIGHTS OF WHICH THEY MAY AVAIL THEMSELVES BEFORE THE COURTS .
23 ALTHOUGH , AS HAS BEEN STATED IN THE REPLY TO QUESTION 1 , FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC FORM OF SANCTION FOR UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION , IT DOES ENTAIL THAT THAT SANCTION BE SUCH AS TO GUARANTEE REAL AND EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL PROTECTION . MOREOVER IT MUST ALSO HAVE A REAL DETERRENT EFFECT ON THE EMPLOYER . IT FOLLOWS THAT WHERE A MEMBER STATE CHOOSES TO PENALIZE THE BREACH OF THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BY THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION , THAT COMPENSATION MUST IN ANY EVENT BE ADEQUATE IN RELATION TO THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED .
24 IN CONSEQUENCE IT APPEARS THAT NATIONAL PROVISIONS LIMITING THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION OF PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AS REGARDS ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT TO A PURELY NOMINAL AMOUNT , SUCH AS , FOR EXAMPLE , THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THEM IN SUBMITTING THEIR APPLICATION , WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN EFFECTIVE TRANSPOSITION OF THE DIRECTIVE .
25 THE NATURE OF THE SANCTIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY IN RESPECT OF DISCRIMINATION REGARDING ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT AND IN PARTICULAR THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RULE IN PARAGRAPH 611A ( 2 ) OF THE BURGERLICHES GESETZBUCH EXCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF COMPENSATION ON THE BASIS OF THE GENERAL RULES OF LAW WERE THE SUBJECT OF LENGTHY DISCUSSION BEFORE THE COURT . THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT MAINTAINED IN THE ORAL PROCEDURE THAT THAT PROVISION DID NOT NECESSARILY EXCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL RULES OF LAW REGARDING COMPENSATION . IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT ALONE TO RULE ON THAT QUESTION CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF ITS NATIONAL LAW .
26 HOWEVER , THE MEMBER STATES ' OBLIGATION ARISING FROM A DIRECTIVE TO ACHIEVE THE RESULT ENVISAGED BY THE DIRECTIVE AND