New Institutionsfor

A Comparativeand EuropeanExamination
Human Rights Protection of National Institutions in the Field of
Racismand Discrimination
Ediredby
KEVIN BOYLE IsabelleRoriue
Professorof Lau at the Uniuersity of Essex

1. Introduction

The twenty first cenruryis far from marking the end of inequality.Discrimination
remainsa widespreadphenomenonâcrossEuropeand stereotypes arehard to over-
come. In March 2007,the Deputy Prirne Minister and Minister fbr Education
of the former PolishGovernment,with the public supportof the Prime Minister,
announceda draft lawpunishing'homosexual propaganda' which wasto
in schools,
providefor dismissal,Ênes,or imprisonmentfor schoolheads,teachers, and pupils.
Th.yalso expressed a desireto promotethe adoptionof similar lawsat European
level.rDuring the communistgovernmentperiodand the 1990s,numerousRoma
'womenweresterilizedwithout consentin publicSlovakhospitals.In 2003,Amnesty
Internationaland other Non-GovernmentalOrganizations(NGOs) denounced
rhe fact that investigationinto the allegationswas not being conductedindepend-
ently,thoroughly,and impartiallyadreqr.rired by internationallaw.2Andthis is but
one instanceof many concerningRoma, whoseplaceis describedby the United
Nations Committee on the Elimination ofAll Formsof RacialDiscriminationas
being'amongthosemost disadvantaged and most subjectto discriminationin the
contemporaryworld'.31n theUK, a 2001research studyonreligiousdiscrimination
showedthat Muslims,Sikhs,and Hindus frequentlyexperience unfair treatmentin

t See the reaction of the European Parliament in a Resolution on homophobia in Europe,

26 April 2007, P6TA-PROV(2007)0167.See also the European Parliament Resolution on the
increasein racist and homophobic violencein Europe, l5 June 2006, P6TA(2006)0273.
2 Amnesty International, Slouakia: Failing to Ensure an Impartial and Thorou.ghInuestigation
into Allegationsof Illegal Sterilizatiott of Romani lVornen(2003), AI lndex: EUR 72100212003.
3 General Recommendation No 2Z Discrimination against Roma (57th session,16 August
2 0 0 0 ) , U N D o c A l 5 5 l l S . l n r h e E U , s e et h e p o l i c y d o c u m e n t sa n d t h e v a r i o u sd e c l a r a t i o n sa v a i l -
able on the website of the European Commission, DG Employments, Social Affairs and Equal
OXT'ORI) Opportunities, under the heading'the EU and Roma' (<http://ec.europa.eu/employment-social/
fu ndamental-ri ghrs/roma/rpub-en.htm>).
l'NIVERSITY PRESS
l3B IsabelleRoriue
education, employment, housing, criminal justice, and Iocal government.aIn 2008,
'The
the European Commission stre.ssed that many gender geps remain: indicators
for pay, labour market segregationand the numlrer oFwomen in decision-making
jobs have not shown any significant increasefor severalyears.'5And these are only
random examplesillustrating specific casesof di.scrimination or structural discrim-
inatory practices,as the number of casesseemsinÊnite.6
Creating stronger legal instruments is one solurion to tackling these issuesand
to achieving nlore equality. Bearing this in mind, EU non-discrimination law has
developed tremendously in recent years, with a focus on efficiency and the estab-
lishrnent of bodies to promote equality of trearment ar national level. The first parr
of this chapter aims at giving a succinct accourlt of how the general principle of
equality, which is deeply embedded within EU law, has received new applications
in order to go far beyond che primary concern of removing barriers to free move-
ment within the internal marker. However, despite the supranational character of
E,U [aw, one cannot grasp its impact on national laws chrough a top-down modelof
regulation.lmplementation ofEU law is often entangled in national traditions and
always anchored in national legal cultures. This is particularly the casewhen mem-
ber statesare required to set up insriturions which, by de finirion, l'ravero fit within
the national legal system.Accordingly, the second part of this chapter seeksto show
the broad range of equality bodies now in place in European countries, with an
emphasis on models that have been of significant influence.T Part 3 addressesrhe
various missions that equaliry bodies are undertaking and tries to provide some
insight into the paths that might be considered to achieve effective enforcement of
the principle of non-discrimination in day-to-day liFe. Finally, the key question of
independence of such bodies will be discussed taking into account international
standards, such as the'Pari.sPrinciples',8to filI the gaps of EU law in this respect.
2. A Glimpse at EU Anti-Discrimination Law
From the outset, anti-discrimination has been a key element of European
integration.e On the one hand, e comrnon market relyingon free movement could not
be consistent with discrimination based on nationaliry. In line wirh this, the primary
a P \Weller,A Feldman and K Purdam, ReligiousDiscrimination in England and WalesHome
Office Research Study 220 (2001). See also Fairnessand Freedont: the Final Report of the Equalities
Reuiew;A Summary,ÉqualitiesReview Panel (2007).
5 ' R e p o r t o n E q u a l i t y B e t w e e nW o m e n a n d M e n ' ( 2 0 0 8 ) , a t 8 .
6 SeeDiscriminationintheEuropeanUnion,(SpecialEurobaromercr263,2007)andtheGallup
Organization'sanalytical report (2008).
7 The national 'Country Reports on Measures to Combat Discrimination' issued by the
European Neru'ork of Legal Experts in rhe Non-discriminarion Field were a crucial source
of information to account for the national situations (availableon rhe website of the European
Commission, DG Employment, SocialAffairs and Equal Opportunities).
I Seept 2 below,especiallyn 33.
e See,for instance,MBell,Anti-discrimination Law andthe EuropeanUnion (2002); D Martin,
'La
Egalité et non-discrimination dans lajurisprudenceconzmundutdire(2006); Bribosia, lurte conrre
les discriminations dans l'Union européenne:une mosaïque de sourcesdessinanrune approche
National Institutions in the Non-Discrimination Field 139
EEC Treary included a number of provisions Forbiddingdiscrimination against EU
nationalsliving or working in another member state.On the other hand, the principle
that men and women should receiveequal pay Êorequalwork was consideredneces-
sary ro avoid disrortions of compecition between memb€r stetes.Over the years,dis-
crimination in payment, and more generallycliscrimination againstwomen, was also
recognizedas a socialproblem and asa breach of fundamental human rights.to
Despite the solitary nature of the provision governing discrimination basedon
gender in the 1957 Treaty of Romerr and its rnatket-oriented background, a body
of law on gender equality has progressivelygrown within the EU to constitute a
'separare
citadel in the FortressoICommunity law', as Lord \Wedderburn Put it.l2
The movemenr started in rhe early I970s and over the years, a significant body
of E,uropean legislation has been ptrt in place. At the same time, the European
Courr ofJustice has refined and strengthened this legal framework tackling gen-
der discrimination related to pay,working conditions, and socialsecurity.
The emergence of EU citizenship and the need for more popular legitimacy
oFthe EU called for broader equal opportu.nities policies. Since the early 1990s,
civil society organizations have been eager to drive the debate forward: they have
p r e s s e dt h e E u r o p e a n C o m m u n i t y t o t a c k l e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o n a n u m b e r o f a d d -
itional grouncls, norably race and ethnicity.l3 The result of this processwes the
inclusion o[Article 13 in the ECTreaty, following the entry into force of the
1997 Amsterdam Treaty. This provision is the cornerstone of potentially wide-
ranging European anri-discrimination laws, as it empowered the Community'to
rake appropriate acrion to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic
'lhe
origin, religion or belief, disabilitS ege or sexua.lorientation'. a.doption of
Article 13 suggestsa growing recognition of the need to develop an integrated
approach towards the fight against discrimination and to benefit flrom exchanges
of experienceancl good practice acrossthe variotts grotrnds.
AlrhotrghArticle 13 representsa fundamentalstep forward in the implementation
of the principle o[equal rrearment within Europe, this provision lacks direct effect
and, as such, does not oblige the Etrropean institutions to act.r4The approval of
in C Bayart,S Sottiaux,and S Van Drooghenbroeck
différenciée', (eds),Lesnouuellesloisluttant
contrela discrimination(dieKeure-La Chane,Brugges-Brussels, 2008)31-62'
t0 Seethe landmarkdecisions II lL976l
of theEuropeanCourt ofJustice:Case43175Defrerute
ECR455;Case149177 DefenneIII [1978]ECR 1365.
rI Arr 119,pc I of the EEC Treaty(nowembodiedin Art 141.1of the EC Treaty)statesthat
'Each of theprincipletharmenandwomenshould
Memb.iSrnr"shall. . . ensure.. . theapplicarion
receiveequalpayfor equalwork.'
tz LabourLaw onFreedom:FurtherEssays in LabourLaw (199î at 265.
t3 For instance,the StarringLine Group,a coalition,createdin 1991,of morethan 400
non-governmenral acrorsactivein the anti-discrimination Êeldand originatingfrom all across
Euro!e.On theSrartingLineGroup'sactivities, see,for instance,Chopjl.'TheSrartingLine:A
Harmonised Approachro theFightagainstRacismandto PromoteEqualTreatment', I European
Journalof MigrationandLaw (1999)lll-29.
r{ See,For-instance, E. Dubout, L'articleI3 da traité CE, La cldusecommunautdire de lu.tte
contrelesdiscrinrinations(2006).For recenrapplications of Art l3 EC asa guidefor interpreting
secondaryECiaw, see,Advocare General Maduroin CaseC-303106 Coleman,opinion deliveredon
t4a IsabelleRoriue
appropriare legal lneasuresro combat discrimination entails unanimity within the
Council on a proposalfrom the Commission, aFterconsultationwith the Parliament.
Becauseof the unanimity requirement,manyshared theview that nothingwas likely
co happen within years,if ever.Two directives rvere, however, adopted in 2000, the
year following the enrry into fbrce of the Amsterdam Treaty: Directive 20001431F,C
implemendng the principle ofequal treatment between personsirrespectiveof racial
or erhnic origin (RacialEquality Directive)lt and Directive 2000l7BlEC establish-
ing a general framework for equal treatn]ent in employment atrd occupation with
respecr ro religion or beliefi disability, age and sexual orientation (Employmenr
Equaliry Directive).16Such a speedyachievementwas the result ofyears of civil soci-
ery campaigning which prepared the ground for broad support for legislativemeas-
ures. Exceprional polirical circumstances also played a decisiverole. Oddly enough,
Jôrg Haider, rhe leaderof rhe FPÔ (an Austrian extremist right wing political party),
boosted rhe process.His participation in the SchiisselGovernment in 2000 caused
deep concern in other EU member statesat the time. Implementing concrete meas-
ures against racial discrimination rvas considered to be a priority in Europe and
Ausrria, facing political conlinement, could not afford to vote against the adoption
of anti-discrimination legislation.
The Racial Equaliry Directive and the Employment Equality Directive sig-
nificantly raisethe level of legal protection against discrimination acrossthe EU.
Th.y prohibit fbur forms oF unlawful discrimination: direct and indirect dis-
crimination, harassment,and instructions to discriminate. Direct discrimination
deal.swith situarions where'one person is treated lessfavourably than another is,
has been or would be treated in a comparable situation' becauseof a prohibited
ground of discrimination.rT This is, for instance, the casewhen an advertisement
for renting a flat bluntly says'foreignersnot welcome'.r8Couversely, indirect dis-
crimination is not necessarilylinked to any discriminatory intent.le It occurs
'an
where apparenrly neutralprovision, criterion or practice'would put personsof
a parricular racial or ethnic origin, religion or belie[ age,disability, or sexualorien-
rarion at a particular disadvantage,unless it can be'objectively justified by a legit-
imate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary'.2O
A company dresscode could amount to indirect discrimination basedon religion
when ir is incomparible with the wearing oFthe headscarfi,the kippa, or the tur-
ban wirhour proper justiÊcation (ie safety for jobs requiring wearing of a helmet,
3l January2008,cspccialll' points7-14 andCaseC-54107 Feryn,opiniondelivercd on l2 March
2008,cspccially point 14.
'5 0J 2000L180122, t6 0J 2000L303116.
'7 Arc2(2)(e)of rheRacialEqualityandtheEmploymentEqualityDirectives.
tB Difference of rreatmentbasedon raceor ethnicitycanneverbeju.stificd exceptwhenit con-
'a occuparional
requirernent'(RacialEqualityDirective,Arr 4).
srirutes genuineanddeterrnining
The classical insranceconcerns a film rnakerwho intendsto hire an actorplayingMartin Luther
King or Muhamnrad Ali.
tt In EU larv,tireconceprof indirecrdiscriminationwasoriginallybuilt by theEuropean Court
of Justiceirr equalpaymentcases. Seerhefollowinglandrnarkdecisions: Case96/80 Jenkins[198I)
ECR 9l l; Case170184 Bilha-Kaufhaus [1986)ECR 1607.
20 Art 2(2)(b)of the RacialEqualiryandtheEmploymenc EqualityDirectives.
National Institutions in the Non-Discrimination. Field 14I
public healrh for jobs in the food indrrstry, erc). Compared to direct and indirect
discrimination, harassmenrentails unwanted conduct which lasts for a certain
period oF time. The behaviour amounts to harassmentwhere it has the purpose
or effect of violating the dignity of a person and.createsan inrimidating, hostile,
degrading, humiliating, or offensiveenvironment.2r An employee in a same sex
couple partnership is, Êorinstance,being harassedwhen he has to face recurring
homophobic remarks from his bossor colleagues.Finally, the ban on instrucrions
to discriminate means that the mere act of enjoining a third party to discrirn-
inate on prohibited ground equals unlawful discrimination,zz Accordingly, an
'whire
employer giving instruction to a temping agency only to hire people' is in
breachof EU anti-discrimination law as is the temping agency.
It should be stressedthat the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment
Equaliry Directive do not have the same materialscope. \With respecrto raceand
ethnic origin, employment, training, education, social security, healthcare,hous-
ing, and accessto goods and servicesare covered.As to religion or belie[, disabil-
ity, age, or sexual orientation, the protected area is confined to employment and
occupation, as well as vocational training.23 However, concerning the level of
p r o t e c t i o n ,E U l a w l a y sd o w n m i n i m u m s t a n d a r d s ,t h u s g i v i n g t h e m e m b e r s t e t e s
c h eo p t i o n o f i n t r o d u c i n g o r m a i n t a i n i n g m o r e f a v o u r a b l ep r o v i s i o n s . 2Ta h i s h a s
been the case in a number of member steteswhere provisiorrswere beyond the
requirements of the E,mployment E,quality Directive.25
The Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Dir:ectiveswere
built on the gender experienceand the caselaw of the E,uropeanCourt oflJustice.
In contrast to the 1976 Gender Equal Treatment Directive26 which mainly
Focusedon forbidding discrimination between women and men in all aspectsof
the employment relationship, the 2000 I)irectives also pay particular attention
to issuesrelated co remediesand enforcement, mainly deflenceo[rights, btrrden
of proofi and sanctions.EU practice with gender discrimination has clearly shed
light on the need to put emphasison an effectivemechanism for enforcement, to
allow successftrllitigation and operative implementation oFthe principle of equal
rreatment.2T Recent directives that strengthen and expand rhe legal framework
2r Art 2(2)(3)of theRacialEqualityandtheEmploy'me nt EqualityDirectives.
2'7Art2(2)(4)of theRacialEqualiryandtheEmployme nt EqualityDirectives.
2'3HunranEuropean Consultancy andMigrationPolicyGroup(eds),in Reports V1'120051062
'Cotnparative
prepared for rheuseof theEuropean Commission, analyses on nationalmeasures to
combardiscrimination ourside
employment andoccupation; Mappingsrudy'(2006).
2a Recital25 of thePrcamble to rheRacialEqualityDirective;Reciral28 of rhePreamble ro the
Employment EqualityDirecrive.
25 M Bell, I Chopins,and F Palmer,in Reporrprepared Forthe EuropeanCommission,
DeuelopingAnti-Discrimindtion Lau in Europe(2007)at 38.
26 CouncilDir76l207lEECof 9 February
1976on thcimplementation oItheprinciple ofequal
treatmentfor men andwomenasregards access
to employment, vocationaltrainingandpromo-
tion,andworkingcondirions, OJ 1976L39/40.
27 On thewiderangeofobstacles rvomenfacedin bringingsuccessfullitigation,see,forinstance,
J Blom and ors in ReportV1782196-EN preparedfor the useof the EuropeanCommission,The
UtilisntionofSexEqaalityLitigationin theMemberStates oftheEuropeanCommunity:A Comparatiue
StudyQ995).
t42 Isabelle Roriue National Institutions in the Non-Discrimination Field n5

impiementing the principle of equal treatmenr between women and men fbllow The paramount importance oFequality boc{iesfor the implemenrarion of non-
th is approach.2s discrirnination legislation whatever the grounds concerned is well documented
The establishmento['bodies for rhe promotion ofequal rreerment'2eis undoubr 'give
n t h e r o l e t h e y c a n p l a y i n s u p p o r t i n g v i c r i m s o F d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,g i v i n g g u i d -
edly one of the measuresdesigned to improve the implementation of equality ance to Government and other public and private bodies on how to work towards
norms. In many member states,experiencefrom anti-racist and gender law.shas equality, providing other stakeholdersand the public with informarion on anri-
shown rhat too often the latter remain only on paper.According to the European discrimination rights, and conducting specializedsurveys and researchinto dis-
'it
Commission, is clear that legislation alone is not sufficient to tackle discrim' crimination and ways of eradicating it.'3a
ination. Take for example the experience from the gender equality Êeld, where However, at PresentEU laws only require rhe designarion of bodies for the
there is still a gender pày gap of some 20 per cent despite legislation on equal pay
'[p]ro Promotion of equal treatment in relation to rAceor ethnicityandgenàcr. In this
since the 1970s.'30 As the Preamble oFthe Racial Equality Directive puts it: respecr,the Racial Equality I)irective sraresrher:
tection against discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin would itself be
screngchenedby the existenceof a body or bodies in each Member State, with
L Member Statesshall designatea body or bodiesfor the promorion of equal rrearmenr
of all personswithout discriminationon rhe groundsof racialor ethnic origin. The.se
competence to analyse the problems involved, to study possible solutions and to
bodiesmay form part of agencieschargedat nationallevelwith the defenceof hurnan
provide concrete assistancefor the victims.'3r This is in line with General Policy
rights or the safeguardof individuals'righr.s.
Recommendation No 2 that the European Commission against Racism and 2 . MernberSratesshallensurecharthe competences of thesebodiesinclude:
Intolerance of the Council of E,urope (ECRI) issued in 2001.32In turn, the latter
'the providingindependentassistance
ro victimsof discrirninationin pursuingtheir
invokes the United Nations'Paris Principles'which underline significant role
complaintsaboutdiscrimination,
that institutions at the narional level can play in promoting and procectinghuman - conducting independentsurvcysconcerning discrirnination,publishing inc{e-
rights and fundamental freedoms and in developing and enhancing public aware- pendent rePorts-andmaking recommendationson any issuerelating lo such
ness of those right.s and freedoms'.33Even though these principles were originally discriminarion.35
set out to provide a basic framework for Commissions on Human Righrs, they are,
âs we shall see,widely referred co as setting the standards lor equality bodies. Equivalentprovisionsare enshrinedin the GenderEquality Directiveswhich
cover employmentand occupationas well as goods and services.s6 On rhis
matter, rhe Racial Equality Directive had a 'snowballeffecr'on EC genderlaw,
28 SeeCouncilDir 20041113/EC of l3 December2004 implemencing the principleof equal where the equality body requirementonly appearedin 2002.37Conversely,the
treatmentbctweenmen and wornenin the access to and supplyo[goodsand services,OJ 2004
L373137('GenderGoodsandScrvices Direcrive'); Dir 20061541EC of rheEuropeanParliament EmploymentEquality Directivedoesnot requiremember sratesro ser up any
and of the Councilof 5 July2006on the implcmentation of theprincipleof equalopportunities equalitybody competentto tacklediscriminationbasedon religionor beliei dii
and equaltreetmelrtof men andwonrenin mattersof employmentand occupation(rccast), C)J ability,sexualorientation,or age.This fact is oFtenpinpointed.s ,egr.ttableand
2OO 6 L204I 203('Recast GenderEmploymen t f)irecrive'). 'a
2e Expression usedin thetirleoÉchs ill of theRacialEqualityDirective andtheGenderGoods as di sappoint ingper pet uat ion
oFhier ar chyam ongdiscr im inat iongr ounds'. 38
and Services Directive.TheRecast GenderEmploymenc Directivespeaks 'equalitybodies'(Art
of However,a significant number of stateshavechosenro go beyond rhe EU law
'equality 'specialized 'independenr 'enforcement
20). In the literature bodies', bodies', bodies',or
bodies'areall usedto describe thoseinsritutions.
30 Nolan,'EU Anri-Discrimination Policy',in J Cormack(ed),Reportof the sixthexperrs' 3 a N i e s s e na n d C o r m a c k , ' N a t i o n a l
Specialised E q u a l i r y B o d i e si n r h e \ 7 a k e o f c h eE C A n t i -
meeting---Towartls the Uniform ancl Dynamic Implementarionof EU Anti-Discrimination Discrimination Directives',in J Cormacli (.d),^R.po.i of rÉeseventhexperrs'meeting--Towards
Legislation:The Role of Specialised Bodies,StrategicEnforcement and the EC Equal Treatrhent Dynamic Implementation of EÛ Anti-Discrimination Legislation:"TheRole of
Directiues (2004)58 ar 60. :h. Ylifo..land
Specialised.Bodies, Considerationsfor EstablishingSingle Equality Bodiesaid Integrated Èquality
3r Recital24. To the sameeffect,seeRecital25 of the Preambleto rhe GenderGoodsand Legislaùon(2004) 20 at2l.
Services Directive. 3 5 R a c i a lE q u a l i t y D i r e c r i v e ,A r t
13.
32 General Policy Recommendation No 2 on SpecialisedBodies ro Combat Racism, 36 Gender Goods and services
D i r e c t i v e ,A r r l 2 ( l ) , R e c a s rG e n c l e rE m p l o ; , m e n rD i r e c t i v e ,
Xenophobia, Antisemitistnand Intolerance at NationalLevel,Councilof Europe,13 lune 1997, /^rc20.
ECRI(e7)36. 37 Dir 2002,731EC of 23
33 In 1992,the UnitedNationsCornmission'on HumanRightsdetermined thefirstsubstantial -seprentber2002 amending Council Dk T6lzoT:EEC on rhe inrple-
mentation of rhe principle of equal treatment for nren"andwonren as regardsaccess,o .-pioy-
set of principlesfor humanrightsbodies,knorvnasthe 'ParisPrinciples'. Theyenshrineguidelines ment, vocational training and pronrotion, and working conditions,OI Z0ô2 L269l15 (new Arr ga
-fhese -
on rhestatus,powers, andmodesof operation of nationalhumanrightsinstirutions. reconr- insertedin Dir 761207IEF,C).
mendarionswereendorsed by the UN GeneralAssemblyin its resolution A/RES1481134 of 20 38 Niessenand Cormack, 'National
'lnternational SpecialisedEquality Bodies',n 34 above,at 25, See,how-
December 1993.SeeMcCrudden, andEuropean NormsRegarding NationalLegal ever,the Commission's Proposalfor a Cà-uncilDireciive on irnplemenring the pLincipleof equal
Ren'redies for RacialInequaliry',in S Fredrnan(ed),DiscriminationdndHamanRights.TheCasiof treatmentb_etweett per:gls irr-espective of religion or belief, disatiliry, s.*u"l orienration, 2
Racism(2001)251at 282-5. July 2008, COM (2b08) 426 frn'at. "g.Ë,
 7/+/+ Isabelle Roriue National Institutionsin thc Non-DiscriminationField 145
requirement and iraveempowered equality bodies to monitor additional grounds mediation, and recommendations.
on an approach basedon indiviclual re.1.rests,
oIdiscrimination other than ethnicity and gender.3e
Ir favours a culture of consensus. The Dutch modeloF aquasi-judicial body focuses
on rhe need for allegedvictims of discrimination to have eccessto law. To a large
exrenr, it has recourseto rhe moral weight of non-binding rulings and on the
3. An Equality Body Model at National Level? building of precedents. The Belgian model of a public agency (Centre) seeks'a
b a l a n c eb e t w e e n t h e p r o m o r i o n o f e q u a l i t y a n d s t r a t e g i cl i t i g a t i o n . A s u b s t a n t i a l
A. A Broad Rangeof Practices amount of its resourcesis allocated to providing assistanceto individuals and to

As Rikki Holmaatput it, '[t]he spreadoF equalirybodiesthroughoutthe reaching informal settlements.The British model of a Commission is the oldest
in Europe in the field of anti-discrimination. It dedicatesa large amount of effort
EuropeanUnion hasbeenrapid,like a fieldof mus]rrooms appearing
on rhe
towards the promotion of equality, the monitoring of practicesof public attthor-
ground overnight.'4o1nthis respect,the EU law requirement is cerrainly innova-
ities as well as those of private stakeholders.Support for litigation is strategically
tive and n)any national authorities had to srart from scrarch.Across Europe, less
oriented to enhance substantial changes in society,
chan one third oFstatesappointed existing insritutions with a renewed mandate
Beyond the difficulties in categorizing equality bodies, it is clear that those which
anci t]re others established new institutions. Today, mosc member s(areshave des-
were esrablishedprior to the adoption of the RacialEquality Directive in 2000 have
ignated a specializedbody for the promotion o[ equal treatmenr irrespectiveo[
had a profotrnd influence in member stateslacking such an eqtrivalentinstittrtion.
racial or ethnic origin and one for gender. Even though such a designation relies
In rhis respect, the European Network of Equality, Equinet,a3 has played a decisive
on EU directives, one can only be puzzled by the variety of national practices and
role, enhancing the exchangeof experience,information, and best practices.aa As
the diftèrencesin the form, mandate, comperences,funcrions, size, and effective- '[T]he
Niall Crowley, the FormerCEO oFthe lrish Equalicy Authority, put it, l<ey
ness of these equality bodies. As a marter of Fact,equality bodies are inrrinsicafiy
element is that we face similar challenges. There are persistent inequalities across
linked to their individualnationalconrexr and are rhe result ofdiffering political,
the grounds coveredby European Directives. We need to be a part of the solution to
historical, and legal circumstances.The lack of one single format For an equality
that problem. To do that, we look at how we use our pov/ersand, increasingly,how
body should not necessarilymean rhat no general trends or possibleclassi6carions
we can support changesin attitudes.'a5Cooperation through Equinet is still fruit-
can be identified. Any attempt at rationalization, however, has its difficulties.
ful for European equality bodies. In practical terms, it is mainly based on work-
A possible division could be made between om/tuds-typebodies and commissions -l}ese 'strategic
ing groups Focusingon specific issues. include groups working on
in the sensethat Ombudsmen tradirionally tend ro be more complaint-focused 'policy
enforcemenr' and'dynamic interpretation'of equaliry laws, formation'with
while commissions, which are constiruted by a plurality of members ofren repre- 'promotion
a view to developing equality mainstreaming and of equality'.
senting particular interestsor components oFsociety,are usually eager ro develop
equality promotion work. However, such a division occurs to be unsatisfacroryas
'many B. Influential Models of Equality Bodies
these are far from being unwavering categoriesand of rhe roles underraken
by bodies which fallwithin the two broad categorieswill overlap'.a1
Fivemodelsof equalityboc{ieshavemostly retainedthe attentionof policy makers:
Another possibledivision restson the variou s modelsof equality bodies. Sophie for genderand dis-
the BritishCommissionfor RacialEquaIityand itscounterparts
Latraverseof the French High Aurhority against Discrimination and for Equality in
together the Commission For
Equality and Human
abiliryequality,now brought
(HALDE) identifies Four.a2the Scandinauian modelof the Ombudsman relies
Rights; the various Swedish Ombuclsmen, currently in the process of merging
3e Seetheexamples givenin Bell,Chopin,andPalmer,n 25 above, at 66.
ao In the reportof the European Networkof LegalExpertsin theNon-discrimination
. Fieldfor the Academy of EuropeanLaw (ERA), Trier l8*19 June2007.
the EuropeanCommission,Catalysafor Change? Eqaality BodiesAccordingto Directit,e2000/43/ {3 SeeEquinet's website<http://www.equineteurope.org>.
EC-Existence,Independence (2006)-at28. For asystemariciutuey
andEfectiueness on equalitybod- aa Equinèt began asa cooperationbetweena few equality bodies.The cooperationbecamefor-
ies,seeNetwork ofLegalExperts ontheApplicationofCommunityLawon EqualTreatmént Between
!7<rmenandMen(European.Commission), malized-in a 2A03-4 projecr funded under the EU's Community Action Programme to combat
ReportonGendcrEqualityBodicsQOO<)tECRI, Examples 'Towards
discrimination: t h e U n i f o r m a n d D y n a m i c l m p l e m e n t a t i o no f E U A n t i - d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
of GoodPracilces:SpecialisedBodiesto Combit Racism,Xenophob;al Antisemitismand Intoleranieat 'Equinet'
Legi.slarion:the Role of SpecialisedBodies'.This led to the trans-nationalproject, bring-
NationalLeuel(2006),CRI(2006)5.Seealsothecountry-by-country detailsprovidedon tle website ing together 20 EU equality bodies.The network now comprises27 equality bodies,in addition to
of the DG Employment, SocialAffairsandEqualOppoitunities of theEuropianCommission.
4r Moon, 'Enforcement thé Migratlon Policy Group, an international NGO basedin Brussels,which acts as a partner of
Bodies', andM Bil (eds),Cases,
in D Schiek,L'\traddingron, Materiak the network and asits Secretariat.
and TexxonNational,Supranational andInternationalNon-Discrimination Law (2006)871at 880. at Cited in 'October 2007 spotlight; Equinet', the European Commis.sion'swebsite, DG
a2 'Organismes
nationauxde luctecontrelesdiscriminations; lesdéâsposésaux organismes Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities: <http://ec.europa.eu/employment-social/
nationaux',PaPerpresentedin TheFightAgainstDiscriminationin Practice, Seminarorginizedby fu n damental-ri ghts/spot/oct07-en.ht m>.
t46 IsabelleRoriue National hxstitutions in the Non-Disgimination Field 147

-[he
within one ombuds-institution; the BelgianCentrefbr Equal Opportunitiesand E,quality Acr 20OG gives the CEHR a wide range oFpowers ancl fttnctions
to
Opposition Racism; the Dutch Equal TreatmentCommi.ssion, and the Irish similar to rhose that were exercisedby the Former Commissions, but broacterin
EqualAuthority. AlloFthem (or the bodies theywere replacing) had at leastseveral certain âreas.The CEHR has a duty to consider applications by victims of dis-
yearsof experienceharrdlingindividual complair"rts and working on equalirylaw crimination seekinglegal redressand power to provide such assistancein a variety
ae
enf or c em en ta tth e ti n re o fth d o p ti o n o fth edi recti vesi mpl ementi ngA rti13of
cl e of Forms,inclucling legal representationin court. It may conduct formal investi-
rheAmsterdamteaty. It isworth notingthat,apartfrom theIrish E,qualAuthority garions for any purpose connected with its duties. In the case oF investigation
which cameinto beingin 1999,theyall went throughsubstantial changesin their based on a suspicion of unlawful discriminâtion, it can use stetutory powers to
institutionalset-up or rnandateasa resultof the development of EC equalitylaw. obtain documents and information. It is also entitled to institute proceedings in
relation to discriminatory advertisementsand instructions to discriminate. The
I. The British Commissionfor Equality and Human Rights CEHR has the generalresponsibilityof advising the Government on the working
In Great Britain, bodies promoting equality had alreadybeen establishedin of the anti-discrirnination law. It organizes training sessionsfor public author-
the 1970sand their long expertisemade them very influentialin Europe.Until ities and private stakeholderson how to avoid discrimination and promote equal
recently,the institutionalset-upof equalitybodieswas made up of threecom- opporrunities. More generally,it givesadvice and guidance to businesses,the vol-
missions:the Equal OpportunitiesCommission(EOC, competentfor gender, unrary and public secrors,and also to individuals. It may issuecodes of practice
established in 197), the CommissionForRacial Equaliry(CRE, competentfor which enrer inro force after approval by Parliament and the Secretary of State.
colour, race,narionality,citizenship,and ethnic or nationalorigin, established One of the new powers availableto the CEHR under the Equality Act 2006 is to
in I976), and the Disability Rights Commission (DRC, establishedin 1999). seek injunctive relieFto prevent discriminatory acts and to bring judicial review
On 30 October 2003, the Governmentannouncedits intention to set up a sin- p r o c e e d i n g si n i t s o w n n a m e i n r e l a t i o nt o h u m a n r i g h t s .
gle Com m iss i o nfo r Eq u a l i tya n d H u ma n Ri ghts (C E H R ). The' vi si on' behi nd A s w i t h t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e e q u a l i t y b o d i e si t i s r e p l a c i n g ,t h e 1 7 C o m m i s s i o n e r s
'that of the CEHR are appointecl by rhe Secretary of State to serve for a fixed term.
this processwas basedon the belief fairnessfor all is the basisfor a healthy
democracy,economicprosperityand the effectivedeliveryof .. . public services. The CEHR is a non-departmenral public body and receivesfunding out o[the
E,qualityand human rightsthereforematterto all. . . , not just thosewho experi- Secretary of State'sdepartmental budget, to whom it reports annually. To con-
'Paris
encediscriminationand unFairtreatment.'46'While paying tribute to the three Fonn with the Principles',which stressthe importance of guaranteed fund-
Commissionsfor having contributedto challengingdiscriminationand pro- i n g t o n a t i o n a l h u m a n r i g h t s i n s t i t u t i o n s , 5 0t h e E q t r a l i t y A c t 2 0 0 6 p r o v i d e st h a t
'change tlre CEHR should have funding which is'reasonAblysfficient for the purpose of
moting equality,the Governmentstressed that is not happeningquickly
enough' and that a substantialstep forward is necessary in how equality and enabling [it] to perform its functions'.5r
human rightsare promoted,enforced,and delivered.aT The three previous Commissions were, in general, perceived as being largely
After two yearsof a wide consultationprocess,a new singleequalityand human independenr oFgovernment interference.As the remit of the CEHR also includes
rights body for Great Britaina8was establishedin the Equality Act 2006. From 1 human rights, there was concern during the consultation processthat real inde-
October 2007,the CEHRaehastakenon the roleand functionsof rhe EOC, CRE, pendence rnight be more difficulr to achieve and thar the new body should report
and DRC. Additional groundsof discriminationhavebeenaddedto the mandate directly to Parliamenr insread of to the executive. To provide reassurance on
of the new Commission,namelysexualorientation,religionand beliefl,and age. the Commission's independence, the following provision was inserted into the
'The
Equality Act 2006: Secretaryof State shalI have regard to the desirability of
ensuring that rhe Commission is under a few constraints as reasonablypossible
a6 \White peper: 'Fairnessfor All: A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights' (2004)
in deterrnining (a) its activities, (b) its timetables, and (c) its priorities.'52The
a t l l , p o i n c1 . 2 .
4 7 i b i d a r 1 2 ,p o i n t 1 . 4 . drafring of rhis duty by parliamentary counsel shotrld have relevance For other
a 8 T h e C o m m i s s i o n ' sr n a n d a t ee x t e n d st o E n g l a n d , S c o t l a n d ,a n d ' W a l e s b u t n o t N o r t h e r n
sratutory bodies.
Ireland which has separateinstitutions. The Equality Cornmission for Northern Ireland (ECNI)
is also the result of a processof integration. In 1999, the Four bodies rhat exisred at rhar time
(the Commission for Racial Equaliry for Northern Ireland, the Equal Opportunities Commission 50 Seept 5 below.
for Northern Ireland, the Fair Enrploymenr Commission, and the Northern lreland Disability 5 t E q u a l i t y A c r 2 0 0 6 , p a r a 3 8 , s c h c d l , ( a u t h o r ' se m p h a s i s )I.n i t i a l l y t h e B i l l s t a t e dt h a t r h e
Council) merged. In 2003, sexualorientation was added to the grounds of race,religiousbelief or Secretaryof Srateshall pay to rhe Comrnissionsuch sums eseppcarto the Secretaryof Stateappro-
p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n , s e x ,m a r i t a l s t a t u s ,a n d d i s a b i l i t yw h e n t h e 2 0 0 3 E m p l o y m e n t E q u a l i t y ( S e x u a l priate for the purpose of enabling the Commission to perform its functions.
Orientation) Regularions(Northern Ireland) enteredinto force.See<http://www.equalitl'ni.org>. t2 Ëqualit/ Act 2006, para 42(3), sched 1, See B Cohen, United Kingdom Country Reporton
ae Seethe websiteof the CEHR at <http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en>. Measuresto Combat Discrimination (2007) at 86.
148 Isabelle Roriue National Institutions in the Non-Discrimination Field t49

r
2. 7he Swedish Ombu.dsmen 3. The Belgian Centrefor Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism
'lhe
At presenr,there are still four single ground Ombudsmen in Sweden:the Centrefor E,qualOpportunitiesand Oppositionto Racism60 wassetup by an
OmbtrdsmanagainstEthnicDiscrimination(DO, established in 1986,competent Act of Parliamenr in 19936r replacing the Royal Commissariat for Immigration
the E,qualOpporttrniriesOmbudsman
for ethnicityand religionor other beliefs),53 Policy.62 To startwith, the Centre had two fields oFaction: promoting equaloppor-
(JarnO,esrablished in 1991,comperentForgender),54 the DisabilityOmbudsman tunities (preventive and
rnission) combating racism on the basis oFcriminalIawand
(HO, establishedin 1994)ssand the Ombudsman againstDiscriminationon punishingdiscriminationbased on so-called race,colour, descent, ethnic origin,
gror.rnds ofsexualOrientation(HomO, established in 1999).56 or nationality (repressivemission). In the corrrse of time, its remit was extended
For the lastseveralyears,a parliamentaryenquiry hasbeen looking into the to embody genocidedenial (a criminal offencein Belgium), human trafficking,
benefitsofan integratedanti-discrimination Act to replacethe sevenpiecesof cur- 'non-racial'
poverty,alienslaw and, finally, discrimination.The lattercoverssexual
rent legislation5Taswell asinto the advantages of an integratedeqLralitybody com- orientation, maritalstatus, birth, fortune, age, religionor philosophicalconvictions,
bining the existingOmbudsmenand adding age discrimination.A Bill to this currentand Futurestateof health,physicaldisabilitytraitsor geneticcharacteristics,
effectis currentlypendingin Parliamentand the proposedreform enjoyswide sup- or politicalopinion.63'Ihese groundsof discrimination wereintroducedin Belgian
porr from the polirical parties.It shouldlead,to the establishmentof an integrated law in the process of transposing theEmploymentEqrraliryDirective.
equalitybody on 1 January 2009,the OmbudsmanagainstDiscrimination. According to its mandate,the Centre is in chargeof producingstudiesand
Eachof rhecurrentOmbudsmenhasthe powerto investigate complaintscon- rëports,making r ecom m endat ions t o publicaut hor it ies and pr ivat eindividua[ s
cerning discriminationand to representindividualsin settlementproceedings or institutions,helpingany personseekingadviceon his or her rightsand obliga-
or, rrltimately,beforea court.58This lastcourseof actionis only open if no settle- rions,taking legalaction,collectingand analysingstatisticsand caselaw relating
ment can be reached.tJsually,the Ombudsmaninitiatesthe processof setclement to i ts fi el dsof com pet ence, and obt aininginFor m at ion in or dert o m akeenqt r ir ies
by contacringrhe allegeddiscriminator.As a matter of policy,the Ombudsmen when it hasreasons to believethat discriminationmay haveoccurred.
representindividualsin court mostly in caseswith broadsocialimpact or with The Centre is responsibleto the Prime Minister of the Belgian federal
potentially imporcant value as precedents.More generally,the Ombudsmen Governmentand the 21 membersof its administrativeboard are nominatedby
have dutiesto give adviceand support to individualsor institutions,to super- the Council of Ministers,At the sametime, sratutorylaw providesthat it ful-
vise employers'compliancewith legislation,to raiseawareness through training fils its duties in all independence which seemsto be largelythe casein practice.
and campaigning,to cerry out independentsurveys,to ma[<erecommendations For example,rhe CentrepubliclydeFended a differenrpositionchanthe Flemish
to the Government in order to keep the law under review,and to monitor inter- Minister for Housingand HomeAffairson a recentcontroversialissue. That con-
nationaldevelopments. cernedregionallegislationadoptedon 15 December2006 restrictingaccessto
Though accountable to rheMinistry ofJustice,the Ombudsmenhavean inde- socialhousingto personswho speakor make checommitmentto learnDutch.6a
pendenrstetus.The Governmenris precludedFromgiving directionson how the
law shouldbe appliedor on how individualcasesshouldbe handled.se 4, TbeDutch Equal Treatment Conzmission
The Equal TreatmentCommission(Ccn;er was establishedin 1994to dealwith
53 Seethc websiteof DO at <hrto://www.do.se>.
5a Seethe websiteofJamO at <hitp://www.jamombutl.se>. unequalrrearmenr race,religion,belief,politicalopinion,
on rhegroundsoFgender,
55 Seethe websiteof HO at <htto://www.ho.se>.
56 Scethe websiteo[HomO acâttp://rvww.homo.se>. 60 Centrepour l'égalité deschanceset la [utte clnn'e Ie racisme/Centrumuoor Geliihheid uan Krtnsen
5 7 ' f h e E q u a l O p p o r t u n i r i e s A c t ( 1 9 9 1 ) , r h e A c t o n M e a s u r e sa g a i n s t D i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n cn Rnci sm ebestr ij d i ng-see < h t tp ://w ww. d iversite.be>.
Working Lifc on Grounds of Ethnic Origin, Religic'n or orher Belief (1999), the Prohibition of 6r Acr of 15 February 1993 perraining ro the foundation of a Cenrre for Equal Opporturriries
Discriminarion in \ùTorkingLife on Grounds of Disabilicy Acr (199ù, the Act on a Ban against and Opposition to Racism,assubsequentlyamended.
Discrimination in \Working Life on Grounds of Sexual Orienrarion (1999), the EqualTreatment 62 The Royal Comnri.ssariatfor Irnmigration Policy was establishedin 1989following thc riseof
o [ s t u d e n t s a t U n i v e r s i t i e sA c t ( 2 0 0 1 ) ,t h e A c r P r o h i b i t i n g D i s c r i m i n a t o r y a n d O t h e r D e g r a d i n g e x t r e m er i g h t - w i n g p a r t i e si n B e l g i u m .
Treatment of Children and Pupils (2006), and the Prohibition of Discriminarion Act (2005), 63 Federal Act of 25 February 2003 againstdiscrimination, now replacedby the FederalAcr of
58 Note that the competenceof the Ombudsman is subsidiary.In employmen[ cases,when the l0 May 2007 ageinstcertain forms of discrimination.
persor)making a complaint is a trade union member, the competent Ombudsman is entitled to 6{ On this issue known as the 'tVooncode'question (ie Flemish Code of Housing), see the
invesrigatethe conrplaint only if the union is not willing ro take the case.This should be put in per- Comnrittee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (7Znd session),Considerations of Reports
spectivewith the very high degreeof affiliation in Sweden(roughly 85oloof the workers). Sabmitted by Statet Parties under Article 9 of the ICERD. Concluding Obseruations: Belgium
5e A Numhauser-Henning, Sweden Country Report on Measures to Combat Discrimination ( 7 M a r c h 2 0 0 8 ) ,p o i n t 1 6 ( C E R D / C / B E L / C O / 1 5 ) .
(2007) ar57. 6t CommistieGeliike Bebandeling*see <htcp://www.cgb.nl>.
150 IsabelleRoriue National Institutions in the Non-Discrinzination Field 151

-Ihese
nationality, sexual orientation, civil status, full and parr-rime work, and tlie per- concerns aborrt the funding of rhe Eqtrality Tribunal. concerns relate to
nranent or temporary nature of a labour relarionship.In 2003 and2004, disability, the extension of its mandati the increasein its workload, leading to a signiÊcant
chronic illnessand agewereadded asprotected grounds ro its mandate. Tre CGB is backlog of caseswithout any signiÊcant extension to its budget.70
a quasi-judicial body.Its principal function is ro invesrigatealleged casesofdiscrim-
ination and to issuenon-legallybinding opinions.66In addition, ir may investigare
structural insrancesoFdiscrimination in its own right. It may also provide advice to C. Single or Multiple Equality Bodies?
public authorities or private stakeholderswho wish to know whether their policies Therehasbee nsubst anr ial discussion in Eur opeaboutwhet herit is m or e t f f it t '
are in accordancewith the law. Additionally, it may rnake recommendations ro the iuero haveseparatespecialized equalitybodiesfor eachtype of discrimination
Governmenr on discriminarion issues,including legislariveproposals: or ro serup one eqiality body at nationallevelcoveringmultiple
'i}r. "o-pr.h.nsive
The Commission receivesfunding from severaldepartments of the Governmenr
grounds. for a'horizontal approach'to discriminationtake into
and is accountable to the executive.The nine Cornmissioners are appointed by ".gu-.nts commissions in com-
f..oun, the experience of all-encompassing Present_mainly
the Government and have an independent s(arus. mon law jurisàictionssuch asAustralia,Canada, Ireland, Northern Ireland, or
New Zeaiand.TlTheseareseveral, depending on the point of view considered.72
5. 7he lrish Equality Authority and the Irish Equality Tribunal As to uictims,it appearsmorestraightforwardto âpproachoneequalitybody (a
'one-stop
In 1999, two independentbodies were establishedin Ireland under rhe shop') and more acceptableto have,when relevant,the variousasPects
Employment Equality Act 1998:67the Equality Authority and rhe Equality of rheirid.n,i,y recognized. Any individualis like[y to presenta combinationof
Tribunal. Th.y are involvedin the promotion of equalrrearmenrirrespective or prorectedcharacterisiics an Islamicwornen,a homosexualblackman' a disa-
(ie
racialor ethnicorigin (includingmembershipof the TravellerCommuniry),gen- fl.d elderlyworker,a youngRom) and it is well known ihat concretecasesof
"nd When different
der,disability,age,sexualorientation,religion,mariralstarus,and Familyscarus. unequalrrearmenrcould be basedon a combinationoFgrou_nds.
The E,qualityAuthority replacedthe EmploymenrEqualiryAgency and has .qr"iiry bodiesarecomperentfor each protected ground, they are_onlyentitled
a greatly expandedrole and functions.It is an independentsrarurorybody in to dealwith one aspecrof th" case,leaving asidethe specialissuesof socialstereo-
chargeof a dual mandate:to combatdiscriminationand to promoreequalityand typing
' disclosedby sucha situation.T3
oPPortunity.Ïre legislationprovidesthe Equality Authoriry with a largerange Accordingly, the issueof multiple discriminationT4shows that, from Practi-
of powers.At its discretion,it may assistthosewho considerrhat they havebeen tioneripoi,rl iTrir*,a singleequality body allowsan integratedmethod of work
discriminatedagainst.Its other meansof action includeresearch and awareness-
raising,reviewof legislation and draftingofstatucorycodesofpractice.It alsocar- 70
Quinlivan, n 68 above,at 74.
riesout independentreportson themacicissuesand may conductinquiries.6s The 7r SÈe,for instance,C O'Cinneide, in EOC'Working PaperSeriesNo 4, SingleEquality Bodies:
Equality Authority is headedby a Board oÊDirectorsconsistingof 12 members Lessonsfrom Ab road (2003).
72 'Iiis eccounroÈrh. argumentsis bascd,itr part, on PLS Ramboll Managemetrt A/S, in Report
appointedby the Minister for Justice,Equaliry and Law Reform.E,achyeer,rhe Er1.rylity a,t1dlorCombat
pr.p"r..l fnr the Europ.ariCommissiort,_S1tec'inlisedBodiesto.Promote
'Diicrimination 'National
Chief ExecuriveOfficer of the EqualityAuthoricy submitsestimâresoI income (2002)' at 8 and 59-67; Ni.ssen and Cormack, SpecialisedEquality
'-Ihe
and expenditurero thar Minister. Bodies',n 34 above, at 27-8; McCrudden, Contribution of the EU Fundantental Rights
The E,qualityTribunal (formerly the Office of the Director of Equaliry À g . " . y r o C o m b a r i n g D i s c r i m i n a r i o na n d P r o r l g t i n g E q u a l i t y ' ,i n P A l s t o n a n d O D e S c h u t t e r
G[s), Monitoring Fun1amental Rights in the EU. Tlte Côntiibution of the Fuydlmeyta,l Righx Agency
Investigations) is a statutorybody aswell asan independenrand impartialforum 'T,egalAssistance Individuals. Powersand
iZOô:l A8-5|;iacobsen and Roienberg Khawaja, to
for hearing or mediating allegeddiscriminarion.Equaliry Officersinvesrigate p.o..âur., of ÊiTecriueand Straregicli<lividuai Enfoi..rn.nt', in Rep.orj by Equinet rl{orking
Group 2 on Strategic Enforcemeni, Strate_gicEnforcement:Powers and Çompetences of Equality
complaintsand issuea legallyreasoned and public decision.This decisionis bind-
Bodi, (2006) 9 ^t"Il-12. Sce also the UK-Gove'rnment'sjustifications for irs decision ro amal-
ing, b:ut is also subject to appeal.A mediarion processcomes beForethe inves- gamatethe ,lifferenr equality Comnrissionsinto the Commission for_Equalityand Human.Rights,
'Fairness
tigation providing there is consentfrom borh parties.A mediateds€rrlemenr i n i . n a r es u r n m e du p ' i n r h e ' W h i t e P a p e r : f o t A l l ; A N e w C o t n n t i s s i o nf o r E q u a l i t y a n d
agreedby the partiesis alsobinding.6eFor a coupleof years,therehavebeenclear Hurrran Rights' (200 4).
73 Geraids, 'ùiscrinrination Grounds', in D Schiek, L Vaddington, and M Bell (eds),Cases,
Materials and Texts on National, Supranational and International Non-Discrimination Law
(2006) i3 at 172. For instanceso[ rnuliiple discriminarionsaddressed.bya.comPrehensive eq!4-
65 For more derails,see 4.8.3 belorv.
Dr iybo,Jy, see: in Ireland, Maughan r Th) Gll*mcrMan, EqualityTribunal, lB December 2001'
'-'^ ft: E<1ualScarus,e,ciZOOO extendedthe materialscopeof thcir remir. UnC-SiOOt-020; in the Nethérlands,rhe opinion 1998-48 of the EqualTreatment Commission.
68 S 71 \Tithin the category of rnultiple disciimination, two subcategorie.s can be distinguished.
Quinlivan, Ireland Country Report on Measuresto Combat Discrimination (2007) ar7l.
6 e S e ep r 4 . B . 2 b e l o r v . 'curnulative' 'a'ddiri.re'
First. or discriminarion which refersro situationswhere adversetreattnentis
 153
152 Isabelle Roriue Nationalltxstituti\nsin theNon-DiscriminationField
which aPpearsnecessaryto achieve consistencyin policy and legal consrruction.
In its relations wkh other equalitystakeholrlers and decision-makers,a sirrgle
A cross-groundsapproach enablesa rnore efticient handling of multiple discrim-
.qltati,y boclyis likely to h",r. a stronger impact as it is a largerorganization
ination casesT5 as long as the internal organization of the institurion avoids com-
,.pr.r.l,ing rhe interestsof more p.oit.. More specifically, Pârticulareqtral-
Partmentalizarion based on discrimination grounds. In this respecr, rhe Dutch fro*'being associatecl with those which have
ity agenclas may g^i. i. strength
EqualTreatment Commi.ssion'sexperienceis worthy of note. k abandoned a div- to Christopher M.Crudden, in some jurisdic-
the political priority.Accor.liig
ision into severalchambers competent to dealwith specificgrounds of discrimin- 'rhe move-.ri. againstdiiability disciimillationmight havestrongerpol-
tions
ation for the reason that such a sharing out of tasks was inappropriate to address wh.ich is perceivedto be
itical weighr if it wereîssociatedwitÉ genderequality,
the increasing number of intersectional casesof discrirninarion.T6Furrhermore, the fresent time, and thereforebenefit lrom
in a comprchensiveequality body, cross-ferrilization,rransfer of knowledge, and
fi;,' gr.?,., poliiical priority3t approachis
resources'.8o Generaliyspeaking,e cross-grounds
;;.",.;finrn.i"l common principle-of
good practices among sectors seem easier.Consider, for instance, the issue of more suitedto'educat. p.opl. tt large as to the
'reasonable considered
accommodation' which is only addressedwith respecr ro disability Ëq.,"lity legiJation, and may increase popular
that underliesalI formsof
in European law77 although its application in other fields seems promising and "q,r"lityand understanding'.er In adâition, in the search Forrenewedapproaches
,,ippor,
actually, to a certain exterlt, unavoidable.TsCould indirect discrimination based
ro râckl eraci sm it, hasb. . ist r esseclt hat '[ e] xplor ingt he com m oniinks aswell as
or-rreligion, (eg a regulation in a laboratory prevenring a Muslim woman From rnayhelp to release
the overlapbetweendifferentformsof groupdiscrimination
wearing rhe h;dialt), be justiÊed on the basis of safery when a reasonable accom- racial discrimin"tion From its historical and politicized
the subjectof racismand
modarion is suggestedand could easily be implemenred (ie wearing a fireproof the use of a
resnLt'rces' comprehensive equality body is cost-
fasr.'82'I.inally,as to
head.scarl)?7e
I"]ringas ir allowseconomies of scale.83This is not insignificantin an areawhere
resouices arelimited,borh in termsof expertiseand finances.
to be assessed
The argumentslavouringa single.qurliry bgdy have,however,
First,the dan-
basedon a clncurrencr ofgrounds.Second,'intersectional discrimination'where adverse trearment ir, ùghr oî,h. .h"il.ng., ^r,'api.fitt, fa.ing t.tch an institution.s4
is basedon a unique- combinrttion offactors (ieblackwomencanbesrereoryped assuchandbe dis-
;.r ;i establishing . hi.r.r"hy of interestsreisesa major concern'the risk being
criminaredagainsr becau'se theyareltlachuomen,nor because, onetl.teonehand,the1,arewomen attractt6e most
and, on cheother,theyareblack).SeeGerards,n73 above,ac l7l. SeealsoHannert,'Equality îh", on. or rwo dùcriminariongrounds(usuallyraceand gender)
at the Intersections: The Legislative andJudicialFailureto TackleMulripleDiscriminariôn',23 arrenrionto rhe detrimentof olher issues.Conversely, thoseopposingthe-mer-
'Double'liouble': ineq-tralitiesand thet
ging of equalitybodiesconsiderthat thereis a hierarchyof
OxfordJournalof LegalStudies (2003)68; Fredman, MultipleDiscrimination
and EU Law',2 EuropeanAnti-Discrimination Law Review(2005)l3; DànishInsritutefor In EU law, they rest
;.;. ,yp.. of discriminationrequirespecialattention.s5
!um1n Rights,in Reportprepareclfor the useof the EuropeanCommission,TacklingMuhiph
I)iscrimination:Practices, Policics andLaws(2007).
75 O'Cinneide,'The.RacialEqualityDirectiveasaBasisforStraregicEnforcernenr',inJCormack
s0 ,'lÏe Contribution of the EU FundarnentalRights Agency',n 72 above,at 148'
(e^,!),_$lnort_of the sixthexp_erts' rneeting*Towards cheUnifornrind D1'narnicImplementarion sr O'Cinneicle,'-fheRacial Equality Directive" n 75 above'at 50'
of EU Anti-Discrirnination Legislation: TheRoleof Specialised Bodies,itrategicEnforcement and 82 Boyle g"l,l""rini, 'A Cïiti."[ Evaluation of International Human Riglr-r1lPgl"j"h:t^1"
at 189'
theEC EqualTreatment l)irectiues(2004)48 ar 50. Rr.ir;i'i;sË;J;r"
"r,.t (ed),DiscriminationandHumnnRig-ltsThecase:fnf':'y(2001) 135
76 PLSRarnbollManagenre-trtA/S, for
nT2a6ove,ar6.Forotherinsrancesofequalitybodieswhich sr In Great Bri,;i;,;;;orJing to the wtii,. Paper:.'F"irnersfor ali: A New Comrnission
areorganizing theirwork by Function ratherthan according to the fieldof iiscriminarion, see, Rights' body is cstimated to cost 15-25o/olesstharr
Equality and Human QOO4),"..o*pr.h.nJiu.
amongothers., theEqualityAuthoriryin Irelandandthe Hifh Authorityagainsr l)iscriminarion si* t.pai"t. commissions(app B, para l9)'
a.ndfo.rEqualityin France.Both organizations haveinregraiedmoregtâutidrof discriminarions 8a This account i;ù;.;ti:il pri,, on Moon, n 41 above' ar876;McCrudden"The Contribution 'Narional
thanthoselisredin Art l3 EC. 150-1; i'tri"r..tt and Cormack'
77 Employrnent of the EU Funclam;"r;ï R;gh; Agency', n72 a6ove,at 'Challenges and Choices-
EqualityDireuive,Arr 5. Eqrdirf--ioJËr', n'34' above, er 28-9; Collins,
78 For instance, iràfùft*a (ed)' Report of
theIrishEqualityTribunalhasappliedtheinrerprerarion of reasonable âccom- Equality Cornn'irrion-in Norrh.rn Ireland" in J CorÀack
É:;;bîi;hj;s
modationnormallyonly usedin relationro dlsabiiiiyro migranrworkers.SeeJ Cormack(ed), "ï"gf. Dynamic Implementarion of EU Anti-
the seventh.*p.rrri -..iing--:lowards the Uniform and single
$:P9t, olthe seventhexperts'.rneering-'Towards the Uniforil and DynamicIrriplemenration of Discrimirration Legi's'lîÏ"irrt.ïà1. "rsp..r"iisecl
Bo_<1ies,'considcraiions for Establishing
'The
Comtnissiotr
EU Anti-DiscritninationL-egislation:The RoleofspecialisedBodies,Cànsideration'sfor Establishing Equality Lefislation (2004).4 x 6-9; Choudhury,
Eouality Bodies and
SingleEqualiryBodiesand IntegratedEqualiryLegiilation(2004) at 31.
'reasonable i:r"Ë';li;;;ii'i;","""
"ri'nrtgritta Rishts: Desis.i''''; ;h. Bii Teni, l3 Maastricht Journal of European
7e on ther.rseof accommodarion'in religiouscasesin Europe,see,forinstance, L C o r r r p a r a t i v e L a w( 2 0 0 6 ) 3 l l - 2 2 ' - -
Vickers,in RePo.rt pre_p_ared_ for cheEuropeanComnrisslo n, Religion,and BetiefDiscriminationin s j l n 1 9 9 g , M i c h a e l H e a d , t h e V i c e C h a i r n r a n o f t h e E u r o p e a nC o n r m i s s i o t r , a g a i n sRti t i ' T
'it ECRI
Em|l.orytcry, . T:f E.ULaut (2006) at 19-23;Bribosia, RingelheimandRorive,;Aménager la diver- and Intoleran.. tpônlj;frh. Council ofÈurop. stateclthat seernsinconceivableto us in
sité: le droit del'égalitéfaceà la pluralicé religieuse',
Reuuelrimestrielledesdrohs deI'hoinme (2009) irr.rf..,iu. of its precisË.form and remit, should not havewithin it at leasta
;h;;y;;;i"r"iu"Jf
319'73.1nCanada,see,J Voehrling,'L'obligation d'accornmodement raisonnable et I'adaptarion of tliscriminarion on rhe grounds of race' (in ThePlace
secriondeclicatedr;ilii;;',,ii,h;r"bËÀs
de Ia société à Iadiversité religieuse',23 (1998)McGillLawJournal325-401;'Neurralité Switzerland 22-4 Oaober
dàI'E,rar and.RoleoyWotioniÀi)rioiirra f iain-y -Co*boting Racism,.Lausanni, 'The of
et Accotnmodetnetrcs : Convergence ou Divergence' (2007)OprionsPolitiquer20-2. 1998, summ^'v o''ii|i'i"..ffi;;:ônrigsisl i' quot"lbvMccrudden' contribution
"t
15t+ IsabelleRoriue
their position on the more far-reaching protection of race equality in the Racial
E,quality Directive and on the long-standing place of gender equality in the main
body of the EC Treaty.86Outside the EU, they also rely on speciÊc UN insrru-
ments Êghting racism and inequalities between women and men.87Behind these
debateslies the practical issueo[the allocation of resourcesbecweenthe grounds
of discrimination. Secondly,the necessarybalance between the horizontal imple-
mentation of the principle of equality and the characteristicsof each ground of
discrimination is not an easyone to achieve. For instance, the approach of indir-
ect discrimination in terms oF'disproportionate impact' largely depends on rhe
availability of statisticsalthough the latter raisesdifferenr issueswhen it concerns
sensitive data (eg race or ethnicity, disability, religion) or non-sensitive data (eg
gender, age).88Thirdly, in a single equality body, instances of grounds of dis-
crimination working against each other (eg religion versussexual orientation) are
more likety to be accounted for. In thi.s respect, the limits oF'genuine and clerer-
'ethos-based
mining occupational requirements' as well as organizarions' âre still
to be thought through and will not tre easyto handle.seFourthly, many countries
have several piecesoilegislation implementing rhe principle of equal trearment
and often the proteccion varies (in scope and/or level) according to the grounds
of discrimination considered.On the whole, the benefitsof a single equality body
appear illusory if the stâtutory provisions differ widelywhen dealing with gender,
race, religion, disability, or other grounds.eoBuilding an integrated equal rrear-
'Single
ment statute (a Equality Act') seems to be the more effecrive answer. In
Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Netherlands, and Sweden, such a step for-
ward, nevertheless,has given rise to much polirical debate.
In addition, there are special pitfalls ro overcome wiren merging single ground
equality bodies together. As it involves major reorganization and numerous adjusr-
ments (new stafi, increasedworkload, decreasein resourcesallocared to rhe original
the EU Fundame ntal RightsAgency',n 72 abovc,ar 150).\fith respect to gender,
whereequalicy
bodiesdealwith multiplegrounds of discrimination,therearefearsthatthismighrleadro gender
-
discriminarion beingmarginalized. SeeReporton Gender EqualityBoàies, n 40 above,at 4.
86 This debateshouldbe widenedin the light of the recentcaselaw of the EuropeanCourt
of Justicesearchingfor a properimplementation of the generalprincipleof equality.SeeCase
C-l44104Mangoldl2005) ECRI'9981;CaseC-411105 dclaVilla,judgmentof l6 October
Palacios
2007,andtheopinionofAdvocatc GeneralMazaknoryerpublished in theECR;Advocare General
Ccrlomer, in CasesC-55/07andC-56l07,Subito,opinionof 24 January2008;AdvocateGeneral
Sharpston, in CaseC-427106, Bartsch,22May 2008.SccalsotheCommission's Proposaladopred
on 2July2008,n 38 above.
87 International Convention on theEliminationof all Formsof RacialDiscriminarion (1969);
'STomen
Internarional Convenrion on the Eliminationof all Formsof Discrimination againsr
(r981).
88 See,for instance,Ringelheim,
J in J MonnetWorkingPaper08/06, Processing D(ttdonRacial
or Ethnic Originfor AntidiscriminationPolicies:How to Reconcile
tltcPromotionof Equalitytuith the
Riglttto Priuacy(2006).
8e EmploymentEqualiryDirective,Art 4.
e0 For an example in Sweden, seePLSRambollManagemenrA/S, n 72 above,at37.
Narional Institutions in the Non-Discrimination Field 155
discrirninarion grounds, etc), the processcould lead to dissatisFaction.el From a
strategic point olview, it could also appear counter-Productive. As a matter oFFact,
the stiength of separare agenciescould be intrinsically linked to the identification
of a specihcgroup with the organizationand be diluted as a result of the merging'
Nà*.d"yr, thàre is a clear tendency for European statesto go Forone comprehen-
sive equality body over severalbodies in charge of specific discriminatory grounds'
The Ùrc and Sweden are examples oF countries familiar with multiple equality
bodies which ere currently in the process of merging. Amongst the institutions
prior to the EU direcrives, it is striking to note that the integrated.model is often
i'auoured.u2However, politicalconsiderarions and pressttrefrom lobbiescan lead to
the reversesiruation. Thus in Belgium, whereasthe mandate of the Centre for Equal
Opportunities and Opposition to Racism was enlarged with numerous grounds of
diiCrimination in 2AA3,e3no agreementcould be reachedon the issueof gender ancl
tùZomenand Men was created.eaOne of the
a separateInstitute for the Equality of
major justifications for this outcome was that the situation of women is entirely diF-
Feréntas rhey do not representa rninority group of the society which is stigmatized.
Neither practitioners nor academicsfound the argument convincing and the effect-
ivenessof this Instittrte is still much doubted.e5It is striking to note that in Sweden,
the only institurion which has voiced strong concerns against the amalgamation of
the four Ombudsmen, isJÀmO, the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman which fears
that genderdiscrimination issuesmighr be marginalizedas a resultoFthe process.
4. \What Do Equality Bodies Do?
A. EU Requirements
To meetEU standards,nationalequalitybodiesin the fieldof raceand ethnicity,
aswell asgender,shouldplaya triple role:
'independentassistance to victims of discriminationin pursuing
1. to provide
their complaintsaboutdiscrimination';
e I F o r a n a c c o u n ro f t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e E q u a l i t y C o m m i s s i o nf o r N o r t h e r n I r e l a n dw h i c h c a m e
ro exisrence i n 1 9 9 9f r o m t h e - . r g i n g o f f o u r e q u a l i t yb o d i e s ,s e cC o l l i n s , n 8 4 a b o v e ,e t 5 - 9 '
. e 2 C o n s i d e r ,f o r i n s r a n c e ,r h e " B u l g a r i a nP r ô t e c t i o na g a i n s tD i s c r i m i n a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n ,t h e
French High Auchority against Disàimination and 6tl-rF'quality, the Hungarian Authority of
E q r r a lT r e a i n r e n t ,a n d r h e R o m a n i a nN a t i o n a l C o u n c i l f o r C o m b a t i n gD i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,
bt S.. pt 3.8.3 above.
ea FedËralAct of 16 December 2002esrablishingthe Institute for the Equality of\Womenand Men.
e5 See, for instance, van der Plancke, 'Organismes indépendants:ulte exigenceeuropéenne',
47Ol47l Après-demain(2005) 38 at 39, During the parliamenterydebateswhich led.to the esrab-
lishmenroîthe Institure for the Equaliry of\7omen and Men, therewere voicesstronglyadvocating
rhe conclusionof an âgreemenc proro.oi betweenthe two federalequality bodies.Such,aformal step
has not yer been t"ke,i bur in pàcrice the rwo institutions seenlto work together.In light of this, the
Director of the Cenrre for Equal Opportunities and Opposirion to Racism is entrusredwith a delib-
erarivevore in rhe administrârivebàard of the Instituti for the Equaliry of'Women and Men.
156 IsabelleRoriue National Institutions in the Non-Discrimination Field 157
'independent
2. to conduct surveysconcerning discrimination';
'independent 'recomrnendations To the exrenr that there is no single model oF how an equality body should assist
3. to issue reports' and make on any issuerelat- victims, conduct surveys,or make recomrnendationson any issuerelating to race
ing to suchdiscrimination'.e6 and gender cliscriminarion, a comparative approach is undoubtedly useful to
The Recast Gender Employment Directive also requires from the member states iclenrify good pracrices in strategic enforcement of ecluality law and to provide
'at some insight on the pitfalls that could be avoided.
rhat the competencesof thesebodies include the appropriate level exchanging
available information with corresponding European bodies such as any future
European Institute for Gender Equality.'e7 This fourth competence seems ro
B. Assistanceto Vctims and Legal Casework
reflect in part the work done by the network EquineteB to encourage information
exchange between equality bodies.
rilihilst requiringequalitybodiesro provide'independentassistance to victimsof
These provisions are of considerableimportance as they anchor already estab- discriminationù pursuingtheir complaintsabout discrimination',103 the Racial
lished national equality bodies in EU law and compel the setting up ofsuch agen- and GenderEquaiity Directivesdo not definethe nature or form of this assist-
'concrete and most equality bodies
cies in member stateswhere they were lacking. Compliance with rhe Direcrives ance.Their Preamblespeaksof assistance'r04
requires thac thesebodies should carry out their tasks inan independentmanner.ee providesomekind of legalsupporr.Once again, their mandatesare very diverse
It also implies that equality bodies are givenformal powerr ro perform their func- and span a broad range of activitieswhich go beyond assistanceto victims as
'legal Theseactivities
tions and the necessar!resources to enable them to carry out these functions effect- such,while fallingunder rl-relargerheadingof casework'.l0t
ively. The language and wording of the directives in outlining rhe mandate of includeproviding-in formation the existence of anri-discrim inationlegis[a-
"bout victim to_a,n organiza-
equality bodies has been criticized as excessivelyvague.lOoMany quesrions are rion and the possibilityo[taking legalaction;referring rhe
'assisting tion (rradeunion, NGO, anti-Jiscrimination bureau, etc) could
tl-rat with
assist
left open. For instance, what precisely does victims' involvei Does it
include representingthem in court or is the provision of advice sufficient?\ù7hat formulatingan officialcomplaint;helping the victim and the perPetrator to come
'surveys' 'reporrs
kind of should be done? To whom should and recommenda- ro an amicableserrlement(egmediation);hearingand investigatingcomPlaints;
'What
tions' be issued?101 seeffrsto be at stake is a combinarion of rwo objectives: issuingopinions (advisoryruling$ or binding decisions;going to court either
enfo r ci ng ant i- d i sc r i m i n at io n law and p r om ot i ng eq u aI i t y. on behalflofa victim, or in rhe nameof the equalitybody,or evenasan amicus
As Colm O'Cinneide emphasizes: curiae.\Wirhrhe supportof someexamplesand good practices,this secrionaims
to examinehow equalirybodiesare using legal actionsto work towardsa more
complex questions of tactics and straregy arise in rrying to combar discriminarion,
inclusivesociety.
especiallywhen it is deep-rootedand systematicin nature.Equality bodieswill inevir-
ably have to struggle with limited resourcesand <luestionsof how best to deploy these
resources.. . . Comparariveexperiencefrom differenrcountriesasto which straregies
I. Strategic Litigation
work
will be of greatvalue in identifying appropriateapproachesro combating inequality.l02 In handlingtheir taskswhen assisting victims of discrimination,equalitybodies
shouldbe àg.r to find a good balanceberweentwo objectives.On the one hand,
e6 RacialEqualirl'Direcive, they shouldLear in minà that assistance in discriminationcasesis a precondi-
Arrl3(2):GenderGoodsandServicesDirecrive, Anl2(2);Recast 'Experience shown
GendcrEmplol'mçntDirective,Ar r 20(2). tion for effecriveenForcement oFanri-discrimination law. has
ot At! 20(2Xd). SeeParliamentandCouncilRegI922l2006on establishing a EuropeanInsrirute thar few individuals who feel they have been discriminatedagainsttake their
_
for GenderEqualitl,, OJ 2006L403/9.Art2 of thisRegulation provides rhat'[dheoveiallobjectives becauselegalaction is too strenuous,
claimsro courr themselves-presumably
of theInstituteshallbeto contributeto andstrengthen rhepronrorion of genderequaliry,
including
gendcrmainstreaming in all Communitypoliciesand chcresultingnarionalpolicies, andthe fight expensive and time-consuminga processto embarkon.'lo6On the other hand,
againsrdiscrimination basedon sex,andro raiseEU citizcns'awareness of genderequaliryby pio- eqlality bodiesshould cakecarenot to engulf themselvesin individual casesro
viding technicalassistance to cheCommunityinstirurions, in parricularrhèCommission, and the to carry out other functions.In
authorities of theMemberSrates'.
the extentthat they are left with no resources
TheInstitr.rte
wasformallyserup on 20 December 2006.Ir will be 'ir
locatedirrVilnius.See<http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/chalcl0938.htm>. rhis respecr, has falso]been the experienceof equalitybodiesthat handling
eB Seenn 43 and44 above.
ee On rheindependence requiremenr,
seepr 5 below.
r00 O'Cinnei<Je, 'The
RaciaiEquaiiryDirecrive',n75 above,at49. ro3 nn 35 and 36 abovc'
r0r R Holtmaat, 'Necherlands
CountryReporron Measures to CombatDiscrimination' (2007), ro{ Recital 24 of rhe Preambleto the Racial Equality Directive; Recital 25 of the Preambletcr
irt Cata$stsforChange? EqualiqtBodiesAccordingtoI)irectiue2000/43lEC-Existence,Inàependence the Gender Goods and ServicesDirecrive'
and Efectiueness (2006)at 16. r 0 5 \ z { e t l nn
, 4 1 a b o v e ,a t 8 9 l - 9 1 4 . P L S R a m b o l l M a n a g e m e n t A / S ,n 7 2 a b o v e , ' a t 6 9 - 9 4 .
r02 O'Cinneide,'TheRacialEqualiryDirecrive',n75 above, at 49. 106
Jacobsenand Rosenberg Khawaja, n72 above,at 10.
158 IsabelleRoriue National Institutions in the Non-Discrimination Field 159

individual complainrs is a resource-intensiveprocessthat is not alw:rysin propor- Authority granrs assiscance, at its discretion, if it is convinced that the caseraises
tion to the resultsachievedon a larger scale.[In addition] some types of discrim- a n i m p o r t a n t p o i n t o f p r i n c i p l e o r i f i t i s u n r e a s o n a b l et o l e a v et h e p e r s o n w i t h -
ination, e.g. sysremic discrirnination, cannot be combated effectively solely by out assistance t o p r e s e n rt h e c a s e . r l aI n p r a c r i c e ,t h e E q u a l i t y A u t h o r i t y p r o v i d e s
individuaIenforcemenr'.r07Finding the right balance between the two objectives a s s i s t a n c eo n l y i n a s m a l l p e r c e n t a g eo f Ç a s e so n t h e b a s i so f c r i t e r i as e t d o w n b y
i.snot an easytask.los its Board.lI5 fhese criteria include :
Straregic lirigation seemsparticularly useful for equality bodîes that are com-
1. The capacity of the individual to representhimself/herself.
petenr ro representcomplainants in courts, acting as advocatesfor them.l0e This
2. Tlnecomplexity of the issuesinvolved.
focuseron cesesthat have a wider impact than those ofjust one individ-
"p1rro"ch 3. The availability of materialwhich would assistthe individual in bringing the
ual. Classically,they are casesthat could lead to sustainablechanges in various
case.
respecrs.Firsr, they may contritrute to the statrilization and clarification ofa point
4. Thr- availability oFtrade union, legal, or advocacyassistance.
o[["*; secondly,they may relate to an area concerning a large number oIpeople;
5. The possibiliti ofalternative re-àies.
thirdly, they may have a srrong likelihood of successand are valuable in order to
6. The extent to which seriousinjustice has been perpetrated.
ser up :r precedent and/or to change public attitudes; fourthly, even when the law-
7. The impact/effect of the discrimination on the individual.
suir is unlikely ro succeed,rhey may contribute to documenting institutionalized
B. The potential beneficialimpact:
i n j u s t i c e s .rro
- for others
Wirh rhe raising of public awarenessabout the existenceof anti-discrimination
- Forchange in practice by employersor serviceproviders
laws and rhe establishment of organizations to promote equality, the challenge of
- for development of equality practices,
an increasingcaseloadis one that should be seriouslyconsidered.In order to avoid
a backlog of caseswhich would result in signilicant delay and could discredit che 9. The geographicalspreadof claims.
instirution,rlr some well-esrablishedequality bodies have developed a policy of 10. Whether the issueapplies to:
straregic litigation which involves triaging complaints. A policy oF triaging com- - areassuch as health, education, welfare, accommodation, and transport
plainrs complies with EU direcriveswhich do not require that'the equality body - multiple discrimination.
assist all caseswhere di.scrimination is alleged to have occurred'.l12In national
1 1 . \ T h e t h e r a s u b s t a n t i a lb o d y o [ p r e c e d e n t h a s b e e n d e v e l o p e d .
legal systems, rhe scale of assisranceto be given in each single case is often left to
12. Whether the claim is reasonablylikely to succeed.
the discretion of the equality body.
13. The resourcesavailableto the Equality Authority.r 16
In lreland, For instance, much emphasis is put on developing a clear and
coherent policy oFstrategic lirigacion.rr3According to its mandate, the Equality A r e c e n t e x a m p l e o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t e s t c a s el i t i g a t i o n , a n d r h e r o l e o f e q u a l -
ity bodies in this respect,is provided by the referencefor a preliminary ruling

r07 Ibid.
to the European Court of Justice in the case Centre for Equal Opportunities
r o B T h e p o l i c yo f r h e U K C o m m i s s i o nf o r R a c i a lE q u a l i r y w a st o f i n a u c er a c i a le q u a l i t y . c o u n c i l s and Opposition to Racism u Feryn.LrTIt began in April 2005 when a jorrrnal-
or complaiir"nt organizations.Ir faced criricism fôr not taking on enough individual casesof ist contacted the Feryn company abotrt massive advertisementsplaced along a
"i,l
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .S c eC o h e n , n 5 2 a b o v e ,a t 8 4 .
roe This is not the casefor all equalirybodies(egthe FrenchAuthority againsrDiscrimination atrd
forEquality).Fororherinsrances,seeJicobsenandRosenbergKhaw n 7aZj a, a
, !9v9,at22Fn61. ll{ Barry,'StrategicEnforcemens-p1orn Conceptto Practice'inJ Cormack(ed),Reportof
r t o ' p . , r i p . " n R o m a R i g h r s C e n r e r , l n r e r i g h t s , M i g r a t i o n P o l i c y G r o u p ( 9 d 9 ,S t r a t e g i c . L i t i g r t t i o n ^ the sixth experts'nreetitrg-Towards the Unifornr and DynamicIrnplernentation of EU Anri-
of Race Disàimination in Europe: From Priniiple to Pi'actice.A Manual on the Tlteoryand Practice.of Discrimination Legislation:TheRoleof Specialised Bodies,Strategic
Enforcement andtheECEqual
Strategic Litigation with Partiiular Refcrenceto the EC Race Dircctiue (2004), ar 34-65, especially Treatment (2004)4 ar 13.Fortheexpcrience
I)irectiues of theCornmission for RacialEqualicyin
37.For.*"*-pl.r oFthe strategychanging legislationor current practicethrough lost cases,seePLS GreatBrirain,seeKarim, A LegalSrrategy to CombineandCoordinateDifferentToolsAvailable',
R a m b o l l M a n a g e m e n t A / S ,n 7 2 a b o v e ,e r 8 4 - 5 . ilridat 30-2; asto the EqualityCommission for NorthernIreland,seeO'Neill,'PositiveDuries
trr The .*p.ii.n..r of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission atrd, from tinte andStrategic Enforcement', ibid at 19-21.
r o t i r n e , c h a t à f t h e C a n a d i a n H u m à n R i g h t s C o m m i s s i o n sa r e c l a s s i c ael x a m p l e so [ i n s t i c u t i o n s rr5
Quinlivan,n 68 above,at 70. Notethat the Irish EqualityAuthorityhasovertlyacknowl-
substantiallv overloaded. edgedthat srrcha policy comesfrom a lackof resources (Holtmaat,CatalTstsfor Change?,n l0l
r 1 2 M o o n , n 4 l a b o v e ,a t 8 9 2 , above,at48).
I r3 Seealso chenerv UK Commission for Equality and Human Rights, n 48 above.On im web- r16Barry, 'StrategicEnforcement', n l14 above,at 14. In its strategicplan for 2006-8,
'Our
prioriries for 200812009.. . Prioritise legal casesin new areasof e.qualityin Embedding Equality,thc IrishEqualityAuthoritygivesasoneof its majorobjectives 'ro mainrain
sire, one can read:
order ro build casela*. Àddr.ss gapsin our knowledge baseincluding pay Bâpsacrossall equaliry andfurtherdevelopa culrureof compliance wirh theequalirylegislarion'.
grouPs.' r17CaseC-54107.
160 IsabelleRoriue National Institutions in the Nan-Discriminatiott Field 161

motorway to find gàragedoor firters. After the publication of articles in several Nobody can rcasonably be expectedto applyfor a positionif they know in advance that,
-fherefore,
newspaperswhere Mr Feryn, the director of rhe company, was reported ro have becausc of their or
racial ethnic origin, they no
stancl chancc of being hired. a
s a i d t h a t h i s f i r m w o u l d n o t r e c r u i t p e r s o n so f M o r o c c a n o r i g i n , h e p a r t i c i p a t e d public srarernenr from an employerthat personsof a certaitrracialor ethnic origin neect
in an interview on Belgian national televisionwhere he publicly stated : not rpply has an effectrhat is anythingbut hypothetical.To ignorethat asan act of dis-
criminarionwoulclbe to ignorethe socialrealitythat suchstâtcmentsarebound to havc
[\X/]. havemany of our representatives visitingcustomers.. ..Everyone is installingalarm a humiliating and demoralisingirnpacron personsof that origin who want to participate
systemsand thesedayseveryoneis obviously'i,eryscared.It is not jusr immigrants lvho in rhe labour market and, in particular,on thosewho would have been interestedin
break in. I won't say that, I'm not a racist.Bclgiansbrcak into people'shouscsjust as working for the enrployerat issue.r2l
'no
much. But peopleare obviouslyscared.So peopleoften say: immigrants'.... I must
'I
comply rvith my customers'requirements.If you say want a particular product or I l.1teFeryn casealso illustraresanother colnpetencegranted to some equality bod-
want it like this and like that',and I say'l'm not doing it, I'll sendrhesepeople',then you ies, ie taking actinn in the absenceof indluidual litigants. The competence of the
say'l don't needthat door.'Then I'm putring myself out of business. \7e muscmeet the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism is, however,depcnd-
crrstomers'requirements.This isn't my problem. I didn't createrhis problem in Belgium. enr on rhe cinsenr oF the victim where the alleged violation has an identifiable
I want the 6rm to do well and I want us to achieveour trlrnoverat the end of the year,and victim.r22 Such a condition does not circumscribe the power of the Irish Equality
how do I do thac?I must do it the way the customerwants it donelrrs Authoriry to bring a case in its own right before the Equality Tribunal.r23 For
Following mediation with the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition ro rhose equaliry bodies rhat have no explicit powers to take action in their own
name, it remains to be assessed against relevant national procedural law whether
Racism, the Feryn company committed imelf to change its discriminatory recruit-
ment policy but failed to do so. Consequently, the Centre launched a civil âction a locusstandicoulcl not be inferred from their generalmandate.r2a
in emergency proceedings to otrtain a judget order according ro which Mr Feryn Finally, interuentions and arnicuscuriae applications are other paths that equal-
should end his discriminatory recruitment policy. On appeal, important issues ity bodies may consider in pursuing strategic litigation. Classically,parties aPply
were raisedand the Centre asked che Employment Courr to bring the casebefore to intervene in a casein protection of their own interest, while an amicus curiae
rhe European Court of Justice. The reference for preliminary ruling brought ('friend of the courr') exclusivelyintends to assistthe court in its determination
up crucial questions on how rhe shifi of the burden of proof should operate in of a particular point of law. Nowadays, the amicus curiae is rarely wholly disin-
practice.rle Furthermore, one of the key questions addressed ro the European teresredin the ourcome of the lirigation.r25This is well-illustrated in the case law
Court ofJustice rvaswhether it constitutesdirecr discrimination for rhe purposes of the US Supreme Court and, more recently, of the European Court of Htrman
of the Racial Equality Directive i[an employer publicly states,in the conrext of a Rights.r26\flhile the practice of interventions' is more familiar in common law
recruitment drive, that applications from persons of a cerrain ethnic origin will jurisdictions, ir is facing a growing successin civil law countries and this cap-
be turned down. In short, can words amount to discrimination? Is the principle of acity has been expresslygranted to some equality bodies.I2TGenerally speaking,
equal treatment violated when rhe uictimis only hypothetical?On 10 July 2008, the
European Court ofJustice gave a decision oFgreat significance in consruing EU r2r Opiniondelivered on 12March2008,poinr15'
equality law.r20It lollowed the core of the opinion ofAdvocate GeneralMaduro: tzz 6113l of rhe BelgianFederal Act of f5 F.bru"ry 1993pertainingto the foundacion of a
Cenrrefor EqualOpporiunitiesandOppositionto Racism,assubsequently amended.
[A]n interpretation that would limit the scopeof the l)irective to casèsof identifiable r23JrishEmployment EqualiryActs 1998-2004, ss85-6'
complainantswho haveappliedfor a particularjob would risk undermining rhe effective- r24 SeeR u Secr:etaryof Siatefir Employment exPtlïteEqualOpportunities Commission and anor
ncssof thc principleof cqual treatmentin the employmcnt sector.In any recruitmcnt pro- U9941 ICR 317(HL), commented on in Moon, n 4l above,ar902-3.
'selection' t25Norethat in somecounrries, asin irelandor theUK, interventions aredistinguished from
cess,the greatesc takesplacebetweenthosewho apply,and thosewho do nor. 'lnrerventions AmicusCuriaeApplications.
amicus curiai.SeeMoon,n 4l above,et904.Barry, and
Making IndividualEnforcement More E,ffective', in Reportby EquinetWorking_Group2 on
t 1 8A d v o c a t e G e n e r a l M a d u r o , o p i n i o n d e l i v e r e d o n l 2 M a r c h 2 0 0 s , p o i n r 4 . S e e p a r a 2 5 o f t h e StrategicEnforcementStrategicEnforcement: Poucrsand Competences of Equaliry.Bodies (2006)
decision of theCourt. 3l ar 56-S. In Englandand\X/ales,-the courtmâ)/âskfor a barristerto assistit with researchattd
r!e RacialEqualiryDirective, Art 8; Framework EqualityDirective Arr l0; GendcrGoodsand ro offeran indeperfuenr legalpoinrof view.See,for instance, on theissueof prosplliiy: 9y:Iruling
Services DirectiveArt 9; RecastGendcrEmploymenrDirecrive,Art 19.On rhe issueof the bur- beforerheHouie of Lords,NationnltVestminster Bankplc u Spectrum PlusLtd12005lUKHL 41'
den of proof in discriminationcases, seeamongothers,I Rorivc,ProvingDiscrimination Cases. I26 Jnthefieldof discriminarion, two recentdecisions of theEuropean Courtof Human Rights
TheRoleof SituationTesting
'Quels
(MigrationPolicyGroup,Centrefor EqualRighm,2008);Roriveand areemlrlematic of rheincreasingweightof amicutcuriaebriefson the caselawof the court:DH u
vanderPlancke, dispositifs pourprouverla discrimination?', in C Bayarr,S Sortiaux,andS TheCzech Republic,ECHR (Gànd Ôharnber), l3 November2007;EB v France, ECHR (Grand
Van Drooghenbroeck (eds),Zarnouuelles loisluttantcontreIa discrimination (dieKeure-LaCharte, Chamber),22 Januery2008.
Brugges-Brussels, 2008)415-61. r27Forinsrance, theBeigianCenrrefor EqualOpportunities andOpposition to Racism,the
r20 CaseC-54107 FerynT0 HungarianEqualTreatmentAuthority,and the FrenchHigh Authority againstDiscrimination
July2008.
t62 IsabelleRoriue
equality bodies' inrervention in key casesis not a widespread phenomenon in
Europe, although rhere are voicesto suggestthat this is a strategic role that these
institutions ought to pursue.l2s
In Great Britain, Igen Ltd u Wongrze is an influential case where the
Commissions for Equal Opportunities, Racial Equality and Disability Rights
made a joint inrervention before the Court of Appeal for E,ngland and\fales.
There were acrually three casesof allegeddiscrimination in the workplace (on rhe
ground of sex for two of them and on the ground of ethnicity for one of them)tlo
concerning rhe applicarion o[rhe shift of t]re burden of proof provisionsl3rintro-
duced inro domestic law as a result o[ the imple mentation of the EU directives.
Th.e Court ofAppeal rook the opportunity to examine earlier guidance provided
in a judicial precedenrand to set it out again with the amendments suggestedby
rhe Commissions.r32Ttris ruling has had a widespread impact in the UK and is
refèrred to in other nationaljurisdictions acrossEurope.
2. Settling CasesOutsideCourt
Alternative dispuce resolution mechanisms, such as conciliation or mediation,
have well-known advantagesover classicallitigation. Chiefly, they are considered
less time-consuming, much lesscostly, and they should ideally lead to solutions
which have no winner or loser,allowing the relationship between the parties to be
restored.On cheother hand, some concern has been voiced thac people mighr lose
rheir rights if they engage in a legally-binding mediation processwithout know-
'[f]rom
ing rheir actual legal position in the case.r33More broadly, an equality
law perspective, the main ris[<is that, in the processof negotiation, concessions
have to be made in line with the essenrialsof the law.'r3c Furthermore, others
urnderline that mediarion is by definition not public and allows discriminatory
practices to remain concealed.Equalicy bodies should, therefore, be aware of che
facr that strategic enforcement may require emblematic casesof discrimination to
and for Equality(HALDE). SeeMoon,n 41 above,at 90B-9.Note that in France,theHALDE is
rheonly non-judicialinscicurion wirh sucha power.
r28 Barry,'lnterventions andAmicusCuriaeApplications', n 125above,at 39-41;Moon, n 4l
above, at 904.
t2e lgen Ltd Ù Othersu'Wong,Chambcrlinand anor u Emokpae,Webster u Brunel (Jniuersity
120051E\7CACiv 142,reportcdin issuc2 of theEuropeanAnti-Discrimindtion LawReuiew(2005)
'Reviewof
at 77. SeealsoBrown, Erskine,and LittleJohn, Judgmentsin RaceDiscrimination
EmploymentTribunalCases', in Enrploymenr Relations Research Series(2006)64, ar33-5.
r30'fhe DisabilityRightsCommission inrervened because a keypoint of anti-discrimination
lawwasat scake, althoughthecases did notconcern thegroundof disability assuch.
I t t On th is issue,seen I 19above.
r32 SeealsoMadarassy u NomuraInternational plc [2007) E\fCA Civ 33 (CA, petition to the
HL refusedon 17May 2007).
r33 PLSRarnbollManagement A/S, n 72 above, at 78. Thisreportrefersespeciallyto concern
expressed by tradeunionsin Ireland.
r34 Goldschmidt,'Implementation o[EqualityLaw:A Taskfor Specialists or for HumanRights
Experts? Experiences and Developmenrs in rheSupervision of EqualityLaw in the Netherlands',
13Maasrricht Journalof European andComparacive Law (2006)323at 328.
National Institutions in tlte Non-Discrimination Field 163
b e f o u g h t i n c o u r t s .A F a i rn u m b e r o f c q u a l i t y b o d i e sp r o v i d e s u p p o r r t o v i c t i m s
in seeking to facilitate the resolution of disputes out of court.t35 f1ris approach
of conciliation can be informal. For instance,the Belgian Centre for E,qual
Opportunities and Opposition to Racism has developed the practice of writing
a c o m p l a i n t t o t h e a l l e g e dp e r p e t r a t o ro n b e h a l f o f t h e v i c t i m i n o r d e r t o r r y r o
reac[ra' friendly settlement'.
In a typical caseof an individual person asking the Centre to inrervene in an
instance of discrimination, the Centre will appraisethe facts given, and in mosr
caseswhere the allegation is not ill-[ounded it will seek to obtain an amicable
settlementwith the allegeddiscriminator. Becausethe discriminaror may Fearrhe
bad publicity a suit for alleged discrimination would bring, he may be tempted
to accept this, even in situations where it may be difficuk to prove that discrim-
ination has occurred. \Where such an amicable settlement seemsunsatisfacrory,
becausethe discrimination is flagrant or becausethe defendant does not cooper-
ate, the Centre may propose to the victim to file a suit, If the victim consents,-rhe
Centre will proceed,as the law authorizes it ro do.
The Centre for E,qual Opportunites and Opposition to Racism has beer-rpar-
t i c u l a r l y e f f i c i e n ti n p r o v i d i n g a d v i c ea n d l e g a la s s i s t a n c teo v i c t i m s o F d i s c r i m i n -
ation. It is particularly noteworthy for its pracriceof seeking co assistthe victim
in having the alleged perpetretor oFthe discrimination to agree ro some form of
a m i c a b l e s e t t l e m e n t i n w h i c h t h e C e n t r e , a l b e i t i n a d i s c r e t eF a s h i o n h , asdevel-
oped signifi cant expertise.r36
In contrast, in lreland, the E,quality Tribunal offers a legally-binding medi-
ation servicer3Tbesidesits quasi-judicial capacity.Providing that none of the par-
ties object, every caseis allocated for mediation by a trained Equality Mediation
Officer who assiststhe parties to reach a mutually acceptableagreemenr. IF the
mediation succeeds,the agreement is signed by borh parties and can be enÊorced
through the civil courts. If the mediation fails, either of the parries can ask for a
ruling. The case is then allocated to a different Investigaring E,quality Officer to
insureimpartiality.
In France, the High Authority against Discriminarion and for Equality
(HALDE) which began functioning in June 2005 was granred a new power in
'transaction
2006: thac of proposing a so-called pénal/*a form oF negoriated
criminal 52nsllen-to perpetrators of direct discrimination. Accordingly, if an
investigation of a complaint results in a finding of direct intentional discrimin-
ation, the HALDE may suggesta specific criminal sanction for the perperraror.
This could be a fine or a press releaseof the fact that discrimination has taken
r35 andRosenberg Khawaja, n72 a6ove,ar2l fn 58.
Jacobsen
r36 O De Schutter,BelgiumCountryReportonMeatures to CombatI)iscrimination(2007) at90.
In Srveden,the DO (Ombudsman againstEthnicDiscrimination) followsa similarprocedure:
see
PLSRamboilManagernenr A/S, n 72 a6ove,ar 77.
r37.Seerheprinciples
of the mediation proccssasreported in PLSRambollManagerncnr A/S,
n72 above. ar78.
164 IsabelleRoriue Narional Institutions in the Non-Discriminatiort Field 165

place and, if relevant,an award of compensation to the victim. The perpetrator is to the issuc oFa finding of unlawftrl cliscrimination, the latter could only leaclto
not obliged ro accept the'transaction'. In caseof rejectiotr,the HALDE, can ini- recommendations.la5Investigationsand inquiries are valuable tools in situations
t i a t e a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n ,i n p l a c eo f t h e p u b l i c p r o s e c u t o r ,b e f o r e t h e c r i m i n a l w h e r e a n e q u a l i t y b o d y r e c e i v e sm a n y c o m p l a i n t s o f a s i m i l a r n a t u r e . M o r e e s p e -
'formal "belief"
court.t38 cially investigations âre most effective in situations where the
parry under investigation is a repeat offender or in situations where prior litiga-
3. Quasi-Judicial Functions tion has been unsuccessfulin instigating the desiredcultural and organizational
Severalequality bodieshavequasi-judicialfûnctions. While somehavethe power change, for example the IBritish] Commission ForRacial Equality's investigation
to issuelegallybinding rulings,othersissueopinionsor advisoryrulings.In the into the Prison Servicein 2000'.146
EU, the Irish E,qualiryTribunal has becomea classicalmodel oFa body vested As a matter ofprinciple, the investigationability requires,to be efficient, appro-
wirh rhe power to make binding legallyreasoneddecisions.r3e Jn the employ- priate meâns of action to be given to the equality body. For instance, the French
menr conrexr,the E,qualityTribunal may provideFora broadrangeof sanctions: High Authority against Discrimination and for Equality may request explana-
compensarionawarJr, of payment,ordering employersto take specific tions from any public or private person, incltrding the communication of docu-
"rr.rrs ments and the hearing of relevantwitnesses.In the caseof non-cooperation with
coursesof acrion (egto fix a ramp for a disabledemployee),re-instatement and
re-engagemenr.r4o The Dutch Equal TreatmentCommissionis also a classical the investigation servicesof the High Authority, a court order can be issued.raT
model within the EU, but o[a body issuingnon-bindingopinions.The proced- To date, most experienceand expertisehas beenwithin the UK (and mostly thar
ure is designedro facilitateaccess tovictims of discrimination.The hearingsare of the Commission for Racial Equalityra8)where it appearsthat the mandate of
stagedin a fairly informal serringand a largeplaceis dedicatedto informing the the equaliry body in this respectis one of the broadestin the EU. Although inves-
parrieson rhe law and its implications.l4lThis has proven to be of greatvalue tigations and inquiries provide an alternativeway For individual complaints to be
in ensuringa high degreeof compliancel42 with the Commission'sopinionsas solved, they are expensiveand resource-intensive.As a resrrlt, equality bodies use
well as the substantiallegalreasoningsupportingthem. After the Commission them sparingly and in situationswhere numerous complaints havebeen made.rae
has renderedan opinion, a complaint mây still be lodged beforethe relevanr
civil or administrativelaw courrs to obtain a binding decision.In court, the
C. Surveys,Reports,Recommendations,and Promoting
Commission'sopinion will constitutepart o[ the evidence.Although the Hoge
Good E quality Practices
Raad.the Dutch SupremeCourt, held that considerable weight must be attached
ro rhe Commission'sopinions,l43it appearsthar lower courtsdo not follow this Apart from providing guidance to victims of discrimination, investigating com-
guidancesufficiently.raa plaints, and dealing with legal case work more generally, equaliry bodies aiso
have a duty to tackle situations beyond individual cases. These mainly relate to
4. Inuestigationsand Inquiries the role of government advisor and to various means of action to promote equal-

An investigationusuaflyrequiresa beliefthat discriminationhastakenplaceand ity and raise awareness.

is directed towardsa specificparty. On the contrary, an inquiry is more general In order to put in place effective lneasures to counter discrimination and to

and can concerna wholesector(egsocialhousing).\fhile the formercould lead define priorities, natiotral authorities need to have a clear idea about where and

r38 S Latraverse, France Country Report on Measuresto Combat Discrimination (2007) at 67. ra5'White, 'Formal Invesrigationa s n d I n q u i r i e s ' ,i n R e p o r t b y E q u i n e t ' $ T o r k i n gG r o u p 2 o n
Nore rhar this sysrcmhas much in common with the proceduresfollowed by ocheradminisrrarive Strategic Etrforccmcnt, StrategicEnforcement:Powert and Competences of Equality Bodies(2006)
authorities,which have rhe power to proposeon-the-spotÊnesfor an infringement of crintinal law, 25t27.
such as tax, customs,water, or woodland authoritics. ta6 Ibid at 28.
r3e Secrhedescriptioninpt3.B.5aboveandinpr4.B.2above.lnHungary,cheEqualTreatr)ent r { 7 S e eL a t r a v e r s en, 1 3 8a b o v e ,a t 6 7 .O n t h e c o n t r a r y ,i n D e n m a r k , t h c C o m p l a i n t sC o m n r i t t e e
Authority, esrablishedin 2005, also issueslegallybinding rulings and can impose severesanctions for Ethnic Equal Treatment'has no powcr to demand information from the accusedand it cannor
(seeA Kadar, Hungary Country Rcport on Mertsuresto Combat Discrimination (2007) rt77). hear wirnesses'.As a result,many casescannot be pursued (Holtmaar, CatalystsforChange?, n 101
tao
Q u i n l i v a n , n 6 8 a b o v e ,a r 7 3 . above,ar54).
r { r F o r a d e s c r i p t i o no f h o w h e a r i n g sa r e c o n d u c t e d ,s e eP L S R a m b o l l M a n a g e m e n tA l S , n 7 2 r48 For a comment on rhe experienceof the Comrnission for Racial Equality, see Karim, 'A
a b o v e ,a t 8 6 . Legal Strategy to Cornbine and Coordinate Different ToolsAvailable',in J Cormack (ed), Reporr
t a 2 C o m p l i a n c ew i t h o p i n i o n so f t h e C o n r m i s s i o na n r o u n t e dr c 8 4 o / ai n t h e Ê r s t h a l f o f 2 0 0 4 . of the sixth experts' meecing--Towardsthe Unifornr and Dynamic Implemenration of EU Anti-
S e eG o l d s c h r n i d t ,n 1 3 3 a b o v e ,a r 3 2 7 . DiscriminationLegislation:TheRoleoFSpecialisedBodies, StrategicEnforcementandtheECEqual
r 4 3 S t B a u ou G i e l e n , l 3 N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 7 ,N e d e r l a n d s
J u r i s p r u d e n t i e( 1 9 8 9 )6 9 8 . Tieatment Directiues(2004) 26 ar 33-5.
r a 4 M o o n , n 4 1 a b o v e ,a r 9 2 0 . r 4 e M o o n , n 4 1 a b o v e ,a t 9 2 9 .
166 IsabelleRoriue
how discrimination is operating. Targeted research is therelore essential.The
kinds of surveys and reports the equality bodies effectively catry out to fulÊl the
requirement of EU directives vary greatly. Some merely consist in analysing the
results of their work (eg presenting statisricson complaints investigated accord-
ing to the discrimination or the Iield concerned). Others are more ambirious and
look into the impact of anti-discrimination legislation or study the prevalence
and forms of discrimination. Universities, research institutes, or ad hoc insti-
rutions may be comrnissioned to undertake research or study. In Sweden, fbr
instance, the 2005 survey consistsoFa general inquiry into the experienceof dis-
crimination on the grounds of disability, sexual orientation and/or ethnicity.r50
It was carried out by the Swedish Central Bureau of Statistics on behalf of the
three Ombudsmen (HO, HomO, Do;.tst On the basis of reports assessingthe
existing anti-discrimination legislation,equality bodies are usually eagerto make
recommendations for new legal provisions and, most often, they issuecomments
on legislativeproposals to promote equality of trearment.r52
Recommendations are not lirnired ro legislation. \When it issues a
'deliberation',r53
the French High Authority againsr Discriminetion and for
Equality (HAI-DE) is concerned to address its recommendation to all relevant
stakeholders. For instance, in 2007, HALDE received complaints from eight
mothers of school pupils who were prevented fiom assisting,on a voluntary basis,
reachersin school rrips becauserhey were wearing rhe hidjab. According to the
school concerned, this was contrary to the principle ofsecularism in public educa-
tion. On the basisof a legally reasonedexamination of the complaints, HALDE,
considered that the decision oFthe school were discriminatory. It advised public
school boards to revise their internal regulations on this matter. The schools were
also asked to inform HALDE, on their follow-up to the casewithin four monchs.
At the same time, HALDE advised the Minister for Public Education on the
need to ensure the implementation of the principle of equal treatment in this
respect.r54The wide publicity given ro the deliberations of HALDE,, their presen-
tation similar to court rulings, and their easy accesson-line all favour the build-
ing of jurisprudence and the promotion of good equality practices. The same is
also true for the opinions of the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission and, to a
certain exrent, the rulings of the Irish Equality Tribunal.
In addition to standard ways of promoting equality, such as organizing work-
shops, awareness-raisingcampaigns, issuing leaflets, and setting up informative
web sites, some equality bodies use other tools such as codes of practice, a man-
ual of good practices, or even an assessmentof the lawfulness of the practices of
t50 Holtmaar,CatafustsforChange?, n 101above,x5l-3.
r 5 r S e ep, r 2 , B . 2a b o v e .
r52Forexamples, seeMoon,n 4l above,et930-2.
rt3 On thc legalstatusof the 'deliberations' of the HALDE, seeD Borillo (dir),HALDE:
Actions,LimitesetEnjcux(2007)ar 53-4.
t5a DeliberntionNo2007/ll7, 14Mav 2007.
National hzstituti.onsin the Non-Discrimination Field 167
specificorganizations when asked to do so.l55To give some examples,the Dutch
-freatment
Equal Commission adviseshotels, restaurants,ancl discothequeson
the practices that amount to unlawful discrimination against people oF a non-
Dutch ethnic background.In 2006, the British Commission for RacialE,quality
issuedâ statutory Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Housing.rt6
Finally, the application of a positive duty to promote equality is another prom-
ising tool that equality bodies are beginning to use. A positive duty is a require-
ment that organizations promote equality and diversity in all aspects of their
worl<, in a manner thât involves employees,employers and service-trsers
alike. It
is a proactive approach,with an emphasison achieving resultsbacked by enforce-
ment mechanism and the measuremenr on ourcomes.'157Positive duties aim at
going beyond the breaking down ofvisible prejudicesto tackle more deep-rooted
patterns of exclusion and inequality.
Generally speaking, however, it should be kept in mind thac many equality
bodies lack social sciencecompetence to measureoutcomes and they Facea short-
age of resourceswhich prevent them lrom going Far beyond their core duties of
a s s i s tni g v i c t i m s o F c l i s c r i m i n a t i o n . r 5 s
D. ECRI Guidelines
As the EU requirement the mandateof equalitybodiesis impre-
concerning
cise and leaves many questions open, especially in relation to the nature and
the extent of assistanceto be provided to victims, the E,CRI General Policy
Recommendation No 2 on SpecialisedBodies to Combat Racism, Xenophobia,
Antisemitism and Intolerance at National Levelr5eprovides a valuable bench-
mark to construe EU law. Although this recommendation is sofc law and prior
to the Racial Equality Directive, it codifies best practices in relation to equal-
'according
ity bodies by pursuing the seme parh as this Direcrive: the highesc
priority to measures aiming at the full implementation of legislation and pol-
icies intended to combat racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance'. In
this way, ECRI, just as the European authorities, is'[c]onvinced that specialised
r55Moon,n 4l above, at933.
156The adjective'statutory'refersto the fact that rhisCodeof pracricewasapproved by the
Secretary of Stateandlaid beforcParliament. Alrhoughstarutorycodesof practicearenon-legally
bindingdocuments, courcsand cribunals arerequiredro takerheminto accounrin decidingdis-
crirnination cases.
tt7 Griffiths,'Positive
Dutiesto PromoteEqualiry',in Reportby Equiner'S7orking Group2 on
StrategicEnforcemctfi,StrtztegicEnforcement: Pouersand Competences of EqualityBodies(2006)
43 at 44. The UK is a leadingexampleof the development of posiriveduries,"lheRaceRelations
(Amendment) Act 2000 imposesa positivegeneralduty on all authorities ro'havedueregardto
the needto eliminateunlawfuldiscriminarion and promoreeqLraliry of opporrunityand good
relationsin thecarryingout of their funccions'.
A sirnilarstep wesmadewith respect ro disabiliry
(2006)andGender(2007).
r58HoltmaauCatnlystsfor Change?, n 101above,at40.
t5eECRI,Councilof Europe,13
Junel99Z CRI (97)36.
168 IsabelleRoriue Nationallt?stituti,ns
in theNon-Discrimination
Fietd 169
b o d i e s . . . a t n a t i o n a l l e v e l c a n m a k e a c o n c r e t ec o n t r i b u t i o n i n a v a r i e t y o [ w a y s
ro srrengrhening the effectivenessof rhe range of measurestaken in this field and 5, Equality Bodies and Independence:A Key
ro providing advice and infbrmation to nationaI authorities'. euestion
In order to give equality bodies their Full potential, it is therefore worth bear- TheE'UDirectives
do not requireequalitybodiesto be ind.ependent
assuchbut
ing in rnind Principle 3 of ECRI Recommendation No 2 concerning the func- towork in an independent manner,ie freefrom governmental or orherinfluence.
rions and responsibilitieo s f s p e c i a l i z e db o d i e s : The explicituseoFt hewor d 'independenrr hr '
. Ë't i*. , in t he r elevantEU pr ovi-
Subjecrro narionalcircumsrances, as
bodiesshouldpossess
Iaw and practice,specialised sions162 highlightsthe_paramounrimportanceof this feature.-fhere
are, how-
many aspossibleof the followingfunctionsand responsibilities: ever'no guidelinesor further clarificationin the
d.irectives. Additional guiclance
e. to work towardsthe eliminationof the variousforms of discriminationsetout in the
shoul dbe f ound in t r adir ionalinst r um enr saddr essing
'Paris r he issue, r 63
chief lyr he
preambleand to promoteequality of opporcuniryand good relationsbetweenper- Principles"ul applicationin othercofri"* inst^rments,namely
RecommendationNo lnltheir
.sonsbelongingto all the different groupsin society; l7 of the'utrl Committee on rhe Elimination
o[Racial
b. to monitor the contentanclefiFèct of legislationand executiveactswith respectto their Discriminationr65 and GeneralPolicyRecommendation No 2 of the ECRI.r66
relevanceto the aim of combacingracism,xenophobia,antisemitismand intolerance The'ParisPrinciples'define severa-lmain preconditions for theindefendenrand
and to make proposals,if necessary, for possiblernodificationsto suchlegislation; effectiveoPerationof human rights boclies:rh.
c. to advisethe legislativeand executiveauthoritieswith a view to improving regula- be guaranteedby a constirutionalor legislatirre inJ.p..,clenceof the fody shoulcl
fr"m'ework;the body rho,rld have
tions and practicein the relevantfields; autonomyfrom the governmentandtJbased on
d. to provideaid and assistance to victims, including legalaid, in order to securetheir pluralism;the b"i; shouldhau.
a broadmandate,adequatepowersof invesrigrriori,."rrd
rightsbeforeinstitutionsand the courts; r,rffi.ienrresources.
on this basis,Janet Cormack and
e. subject to the legal framework of rhe country concerned,to have recoursero the '6tst, Jan Ni.rr.., identify rhreeâ..,, o[ inde-
pendence: independence as the authority to implementits mandarefree
courts or other judicial authoritiesasappropriareif and when necessâry;
from stateinrerference;second,independen.. r.
f . to hear and considercomplaintsand petitionsconcerningspecificcasesand to seek n.r'r,."li,y, enablingthe bo6y to
settlementseitherthrough amicableconciliationor, within rhe lirnits prescribecl by act without beingovertlyinfluenceiby any interesr
grorp; and third, independ-
rhe law, through binding and enForceable decisions; encein termsof competenceand capacityro
g. to have appropriatepowersto obtain evidenceand information in pursuanceof its ".r.,rez
functions unclerf. above;
h. to provide information and adviceco relevantbodiesand insticucions,including State
A. Independence from Government
bodiesand institutions; Independencefrom governmental inrerference
i. to issueadvice on standardsof anti-discriminatory practice in specificareaswhich requires a consritutional or
statutorylegal basisto
might eitherhavethe forceof law or be voluntary in their application; Preventan.unsympatheticgovernmentfrom abolishing
*:n\tling the equalitybody withour j"rli"-.r,iary
j. to promoteand contributeto the training of certain key groupswithout prejudiceto 1t debares. It alsocallsFor
detailedlegai proviiions-onmandare,powers,composition,
the primary rraining roleof the professional organisations involved; and appointmenr
k. to promote the awarenessof the generalpublic co issuesof discrimination and to
proceduresso as to enablethe equality body ro acr .*",.hdog,
dr'".tion. of
produceand publishpertinentinformationand clocuments; public auchoritiesand private ", "
.. n. r.g"l srarusof the equalirybody
L to support and encourageorganisationswith similar objectivesto those of the spe-
".,or, "tit
should be independenifrom governmental ,,ru.,"ur., so âs to avoid any subor-
cialisedbody; dination ro a particularminisler.The .q,ralirf u"Jy.l"rld
havea distincrlegal
m. to take account of and reflectas appropriatethe concernsof such organisations.l6o
t62 pr 2 abovc,
On this basis, it has been argued, for instance, that given that the raison cl'être nn 35 and 36.
163see cormack
of national equality bodies in EU law is the promotion of equal treatment, they and Niesscn' 'The Indep-enrlenccof Equality
Discriminarion Law Rcview (z0ol) zl ar zl_i.JHàl;;;;;r,"è;r;û,,tsfor Bodies', 1 European Anri-
should have the competence to cl'othings necessaryro rhat end, including taking t6a ,r Changet n t0t above,ar 33.
33 above'Seealso,
Assessingtheir Effecrivcness', Y-"t-tli. wiii""r H;;;î;tir'iir,i,",ions. criteria anclFacrorsfor
part in litigation concerning the directives in support of a pafty or to eppear as 25lj Nerherr*ar qÀr;rli;i-Hi;an
-Ert"bùrhm.n', Righrs (2007) r89_220.
165Gencral
Recommendarion No 17
anticus curiae in proceedingson the true meaning of EU equalicy law.r6r I m p l e n r e n c a r i oonf c o n v e . r i o n ( 4 2 n d s e s s i o n2,5
oi N",io.,rl Institutions ro Facilitare
t66 n March 1993),uN Doc A/4gtrg.
32 above.
167cormack
and Niessen,'The Independenceof Equatity Bodies',
1 6 0C R I ( 9 7 ) 3 6 , ( a u t h o r ' s e m p h a s i s ) . n 163 above, ar 'n72
24.seealso
Equality Bodies,n 40 atove, ar 3-4. pr-s nambon
r 6 l B a r r y ,' l n t e r v e n t i o n sa n d A m i c u s C u r i a eA p p l i c a t i o n s ' n
, 1 2 5 a b o v e ,a r 4 1 . M"";;;;;;i,Ë, above,
f:!:r':;;.Gender
t/u Isabelle Roriue National hzstitutions in the Non-Discrimination Field 17r

personality and be accounrableto Parliamenr. It should report periodically on its
acrions and favour periodical external evaluation to ensure full transparency.
These are only indicators however; independence is actually very difficult
ro measure. It should not only be guarânteed formally but also be operative in
pracrice. From the'influential rnodels'of equality bodies described above in this
chapter ir appears,for instance, that many are accountable to Government, not
co Parliamenr. And there are concrete issuesconcerning independence of equal-
ity bodies fiom governmental interference in member states.In Denmark, rhe
Board flor Erhnic Equaliry was closed in 2OO2 following the withdrawal of its
funding.l68 ir-rlraly, there has been severecriticism of the National O{lce against
Racial Discrirnination (UNAR) established in ZOO4, because it is physically
located wirhin the Ministry for Equal Opportunities (no adequate premiseswith
'neutral
a face') and under the polirical responsibiliry of the Minister for Equal
Opportunities. In addition, members of the Council thac supervisesthe work of
the Office are all part of rhe Government.r6eIn 2006, there was a seriousattack
on the inclependence of the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission (CGB) by the
Minister of lntegration and Immigration at the time, Rita Verdonk. She publicly
disagreed with one of the opinions issuedby the Commission. It concerned the
caseof a Muslim reacherat a school for vocational education who had decided that
she would no longer shake hands with men. The school board did nor agree, stat-
ing that shaking hands was â basic requirement of respectFulmanners. Both the
r.hool and the reacher requested the CGB to investigate whether the school's deci-
sion was againsr the equal rreatment law. According to the CGB, the requirement
to shake hands with orhers,irrespectiveof sex, constitutes indirect discrimination
on the ground of religion. It considered that the sclrool's arguments failed to lead
ro an objecrive justification.rToThe Minister stated that children should learn
'respecr
whar For borh sexes'means and rhat in the Netherlands respect is shown
by shaking hands. She called for the abolition of the CGB. The Minister got con-
siderable supporr on this issue, both in public debate as well as from Members of
Parliamenr.rTrIn 2007, following federalelections in Belgium, the programme of
rhe first coalirion governmenr suggesteda very serious reduction of the mandate of
rhe Cenrre for EqualOpportunities and Opposition to Racism.l72And the French
High Authority against Discrimination and for Equality, effectivesince2005, had
recently to facethe processof thc reform o[the institutions thar PresidentSarkozy
is prornoting and has potentially to adjusr to the crearion of a nelv Ombudsman
(Défenseurdesdroit).r73 Serious concerns over the drawbacks of the reform were
voiccd as it is suspectedto weaken the standard of protecrion previously offered.
B. Independence as Neutrality
This aspectof independence underlinesthe faccchatequalitybodiesshouldalso
be independentfrom specialinterests.rTa This meansthar they shouldler repre-
sentativeorganizarions, tradeunions,and NGOs act as the voiceof rheir com-
munitieslTsand not appearto take sidesor ro be labelledas supportersof one
inrerest.In practice,the right balancebetweenequalitybodiesand NGOs is not
an easyone ro achieve.rT6 On rhe one hand, roo many links wirh NGOs may
underminethe equalitybody'sneutraliryand objectivity.On the orherhand,nor
enoughlinks with NGOS_putsin jeopardya fiuirfuI collaborarion, on assisting
victims of discriminationfor instance,or a valuablesourceof informacionaboui
rheprevalence and formsof discrimination.
C. Effective Independence
The competenceand capacityof equality bodiesro acr independentlyrequires
appropriatecomPosition,appropriatepowers,and sufficientresources.tTT As for
cornpositioz,
this particularlyentails that the Board (or Commissioners)and the
key staffshouldbe chosenwith a view to insurepluralism;appointmentshould
be made through strict termsof reference laid down by law; shouldbe
appropriatesafleguards againstarbitrarydismissaland arbitrary".td.h.r.
non-renewalof
appoinrment.rTs This alsomeansthat equalitybodiesshouldbe enrrustedwith
appropriarcpowert.Th.y should not only be providedwith sufficientpower.sro
carry out theii mandateeffectively, but a clearfocusshouldalso be put on th.
needto avoidconf icts betweenpowersrhat could leadto a confusio.,Àf roler.
This issue has been nruch debatedin rhe Nerherlands,where the Equal
TreatmentCommissionhas a quasi-judicialrole in giving advisoryrulings on

ln the processof the reFormof the institutions in France,a Commitree was.serup in 2007
168CormackandNie.ssen, 'TheIndependence n 163above,
of EqualityBodie.s', at24. ,,-t73
(Com.ité.deref.exio-nsur Ia modernisation et le rééqailibragq des institutions).ln
its report, ir recom-
r6e HolrmaaçCatalystsfor Cbange?, n 101above,ac34-5. Therearesimilarconcernsfor the mendsthe establishmentof an Ombudsman for Fiuman fl.ighrrwhich should t"k. oul, rhe mandate
Slovenian andSpanish equalitybodies(seeBcll,Chopin,andPalmer, n 25 above,at69). of severalinstitutions.As.part of a more inclusiveBill, rhis
r70CGB, Opinion2006-2201221, iroposition was presenredin parliament
7 November 2006. on 23 April2008 (Projetde loi constitutionnellede modernisaiion'desinstitutiois de laVàntc Républiquc,
17t R Holtm aat,Netherlands CountryReporton Measures to CombatDiscrimination(2007) ar No 820) and adopted on 23 July 2008 (Loi constitutionnelleNo 200B-724 which inserts fitté Xt
63-4. Note rharRitaVerdonkquir theVVD (Conservative Parrl)in20O7andofficiallylaunched Éri in the Constitution dedicatedto a new Ombudsman: the'Défenseurdesdroits'). "
'Proudof (TroxopNcderland) in April.2008. t7a cormack and Niessen,'Jhe
a -populisrmoveme nr, theNetherlands' Independenceof Equaliry Bodies',n l6l above, at 26.
tz) 15. othercoalitionGovernment whichwâssetup in theendabandoned thisprojecr,In this r75 O'Cinneide, 'The Racial
'expresses Equality Direcrive', n Z5 aboue,at 51.
respecr, on 7 March2008,theCommitteeon theEliminationof RaciaiDiscriminario.n t76 Holtma at, Catalysts
.for Cha'nge?,â 10t , at 36.
its iarisfacrionfor thework of rheCenrrefor EqualOpportunityandAcrionto CombarRacism, r77 Cormack and Niessen, 'The "bo.r.
independence of Equality Bodies',n 16l above, at 2G-7,
especially in bringingcascsof racialdiscriminaiionro èor'rrr, aswellastheassuranca giucn^by r78 This seemsnot to be the
.th-e casein i-Iungar1,,where the'Presidenr'sappointment of the Equal
dàlegrttion that thlre is no intentiontu narrow itsmandate'(n 64 above,CERD/C/BEL/CO/15, tearment Authority may be withdrawn any time rvithout any justiÊcârion.See Kadar, n i38
poinr5, author's emphasis). above,ar74. "t
 't-77
172 IsabelleRoriue National Institutions in the Non-Discrinzination Field

equality casesand can also assistvictims in bringing c:rsesto court. The power beingat the sourceo[the settingtrp of manyspecialized bodiesfor the promotionof
to take legal action in court lvas given to the Dutch Commission ro counterbal- equalrrearmentand the reshapingof existentagencies. The spectrumof modelsof
ance the absenceof enfbrceabiliry oIirs rulings. Acrually, since its establishment equalirybodieslound acrossEuropeis large,but therearegeneraltrendsbeyondthe
in 1994, the Commission has never taken any case to court, and does not assist differences and a high nurnberoFmemberstatesgo further than EU law standards.
victims, to avoid conFusion between its missions.rTeAs a marter of principle, First,moregroundsof discriminationthan raceandgenderoftenfallwithin theman-
'[d]oubts
of a body's independence may be raised i[, fbr example, it is acting as dareof nationalequalirybodies,thus fiiling the gap of the EmploymentEquality
investigaror of allegations of discrimination one minute, defènding victims the Directive.In this respect, but ratherto
thetendencyisclearlynot to mtrltiplyagencies,
next and adjudicating breachesof legislationafter thar.'180TheIrish equality bod- fosterthe establishment of a comprehensive equalitybody allowinga cross-grounds
ies avoid such criticism. There is a clear division oIFunctions between the E,quality approach.Secondly, the powersgrantedto equalitybodiesto combatdiscrimination
Authority as a proactive body working to promote equality and to assisrvictims arenorlimitedroassistingvictims or makingsurveys, reports,andrecommendations.
and the Equality Tribunal as a quasi-judicial body processing individual cases Equalitybodiesdevelopalternative disputeresolutionmechanisms; investigatecom-
and issuing legally-binding decisions,The Durch Equal Trearment Commission plaints;go to court;issueopinionsand recommendations; adviseE]overnments; assess
'also
has concerns around drafting codes of conduct or recommendations, and the practicesof public and privatestakeholders; launch inquiries;enforcepositive
tlren being asked to interpret and apply these in a case, thereby acring as both duties;highlighrgood practices; organizetraining;sustaineducationprogrammes;
judge and legislator (even if the codes of practice âre nor legally binding)'.l8t andinitiatecampaigns promotingequalopportuniries.
'[t]here
From a general point of view are sometimes conflicts between the powers The EU hasundoubtedlygivena strongboostto the flourishingand growth of
oIa specialisedbody such as the rolesof adjudicaror, promoter of equal rreatment specialized equalitybodiesacross Europe.In somecountriesthesebodieshad roots
and investigator and exercising those powers simultaneously. The comperences in deep-seated nationaltraditionswhich greatlyinfluencedthe RacialEquality
should be clearly categorisedand where necessaryon the basisof the separationof Direcriveand irsFocus on enforcement bodies.During the stages of the implemen-
powers, some competencesshould be undertaken externally.'182 'influential
rerion o[ EU law,these models'wereof greathelp to other member
Adequate financial resoltrcetare directly linked to staffing, as subsrantial statesand the addedvalueof the Equinetnetworkwassignificântin this respect.
resources are needed to appoint experienced and trained staff. The Governmenr On rheorherhand,it is strikingto notethat this process of cross-fertilization
gave
generally provides most of the budget. Staff shortage is a key clifficuhy that Êresh impetusro mostof thesepre-existing modelswhich joinedin the momentum
equality bodies are encountering in many member stâtes.And rhe allocation o[ that the EU initiated.Followingthe implementation oFthedirectives, sucha pro-
resources is a typical area in which the state may attempr to exert control. This cessis still ongoingand will hopefullybe reinforced by the newEuropeanInstitttte
was, for instance, the danger that the Hungarian Equal Treatment Aurhoriry for GenderEqualityrs4and the new EU FundamentalRightsAgency.rs5
was facing, where, at one point, ics annual budget, akhough determined by Although impressiveforward stepshavebeentaken to enhancethe implemen-
Parliament, was actually in the hands of rhe Minister accountable for ir who had ration oFthe principleof equaltreatmentin Europe,the challenges that remain
the right to modiÊy the Authority's budget during the year.183 aresignificant.As regardsthe effectiveness of equalirybodies,independence lrom
governmentalinterference may provedelicateand shouidbecarefullymonirored.
The issueof resources is alsocriticaland onecanonly doubt cheefficiencyof equal-
6, Conclusion ity bodieswhich only comprisea handful of staffmembers.In addition,equality
bodiesshouldpayparticularartentionto the dangersof becomingboggeddown
BroadEU anti-discrimination
lawhasonlydeveloped
recentlywith
theimpulse
of the in the supportoFroutine anti-discriminarionceses.Their missionis not to rep-
Treaty ofAmsterdam. From an institutional point ofview, it has had a major impact, licateactivitiesundertakenby individualsbut to promotesocialchangesby dis-
tinctive meens.The focusshould be on stra.tegic enforcementand this calls Fora
definitionof prioritiesand actionplansthat go far beyondindividuallitigation.
I7e PLS Ramboll ManagementA/S, n 72 above,at 84. In the Netherlands,
there areorher insti-
t u t i o n s f u n d e d b y t h e G o v e r n m e n tw h i c h a s s i s tv i c r i n r s ,m a i n l y t h e l o c a l A n t i - D i s c r i r n i n a r i o n Brussels,
May 2008
Bureaus (Holtmaat, Netherlands Country Report, n 169 above, at 63).
r 8 0 C o r m a c k a n d N i c s s e n ,' T h e I n d e p e n d c n c eo f E q u a l i r y B o d i e s ' ,n 1 6 3 a b o v e ,
ar27. t84 n97 above, 185 Seech 4 in this volume.
'8t Ibid.
r82. Cormack (ed), ConsiderationsforEstablishingSingb
J Eqaality BodiesandlntegratedEqualiry
Legislation, n 78 above, ar 32.
r 8 3 K a d a r , n 1 3 9 a b o v e, a c 7 4 .