Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013.

Asociaţia ACCEPT v Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării.

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Curtea de Apel Bucureşti - Romania.

Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2(2)(a), 10(1) and 17 - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation - Concept of ‘facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination’ - Modified burden of proof - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions - Person presenting himself and being perceived by public opinion as playing a leading role in a professional football club - Public statements ruling out the recruitment of a footballer presented as being homosexual.

Case C-81/12.


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
31/05/2013 Asociaţia Accept
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2013:275
25/04/2013 Asociaţia Accept
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2013:275
25/04/2013 Asociaţia Accept
Application (OJ)
13/04/2012 Asociaţia Accept
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Apel Bucureşti - Interpretation of Articles 2(2)(a), 10(1) and 17 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) – Criteria used in the selection of football club staff discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation - Applicability of the directive when statements are made in the press, in the absence of an actual recruitment procedure – Facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination – Burden of proof – Body of penalties applicable when those provisions are infringed – Whether permissible for national legislation to preclude the imposition of a fine for infringement once the limitation period of six months has expired – Duty to impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions

Systematic classification scheme

1.
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.14 Social policy
    4.14.01 Equality and non-discrimination
      4.14.01.01 General framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78)
        4.14.01.01.00 General
3 Legal proceedings
  3.04 Reference for a preliminary ruling
    3.04.01 Reference to the Court of Justice
      3.04.01.03 Exclusive nature of the role of the national court in making the reference
3 Legal proceedings
  3.04 Reference for a preliminary ruling
    3.04.02 Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.14 Social policy
    4.14.01 Equality and non-discrimination
      4.14.01.01 General framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78)
        4.14.01.01.00 General
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.14 Social policy
    4.14.01 Equality and non-discrimination
      4.14.01.01 General framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78)
        4.14.01.01.00 General
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.14 Social policy
    4.14.01 Equality and non-discrimination
      4.14.01.01 General framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78)
        4.14.01.01.00 General


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Directive 2000/78 : paragraphs 58, 64 - 67
  • Directive 2000/78 -A01 : paragraphs 3, 44
  • Directive 2000/78 -A02P1 : paragraphs 5, 42
  • Directive 2000/78 -A02P2 : paragraphs 5, 40, 53, 62
  • Directive 2000/78 -A02P3 : paragraph 5
  • Directive 2000/78 -A02P2LA : paragraphs 1, 35, 36
  • Directive 2000/78 -A03P1 : paragraph 6
  • Directive 2000/78 -A03P1LA : paragraph 44
  • Directive 2000/78 -A08P1 : paragraphs 37, 38
  • Directive 2000/78 -A09 : paragraphs 8, 63
  • Directive 2000/78 -A09P2 : paragraphs 37 - 39, 69
  • Directive 2000/78 -A10 : paragraph 9
  • Directive 2000/78 -A10P1 : paragraphs 1, 35, 38, 40, 42, 47, 48, 53 - 59
  • Directive 2000/78 -A10P2 : paragraph 38
  • Directive 2000/78 -A10P4 : paragraph 38
  • Directive 2000/78 -A17 : paragraphs 1, 10, 35, 60 - 73
  • Directive 2000/78 -C15 : paragraphs 4, 42
  • Directive 2000/78 -C28 : paragraph 4
  • Directive 2000/78 -C31 : paragraph 4
  • Directive 2000/78 -C35 : paragraph 4
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -13/76 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -14/83 : paragraph 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/89 : paragraph 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -271/91 : paragraph 69
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -383/92 : paragraph 63
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -415/93 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -180/95 : paragraphs 63, 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -101/01 : paragraph 63
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -196/02 : paragraph 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -451/03 : paragraph 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -470/03 : paragraph 51
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -430/05 : paragraph 63
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -303/06 : paragraph 55
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -54/07 : paragraphs 31, 46, 62, 68
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -325/08 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -406/08 : paragraph 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -163/10 : paragraph 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -415/10 : paragraph 42

Operative part

  • Interprets : Directive 2000/78 -A02P2
  • Interprets : Directive 2000/78 -A10P1
  • Interprets : Directive 2000/78 -A17

Opinion

Information not available


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 14/02/2012

Date of the Opinion

Information not available

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

25/04/2013


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 126 from 28.04.2012, p.6

Judgment: OJ C 171 from 15.06.2013, p.8

Name of the parties

Asociaţia Accept

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Thüsing, Gregor: Fussball derzeit überall - aber auch Toleranz?, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 2012 nº 12 p.III (DE)
  2. Castermans, A.G.: Jurisprudentie arbeidsrecht 2013 nº 143 (NL)
  3. Castellaneta, Marina: Se un dirigente di calcio fa dichiarazioni omofobe il club deve provare l'assenza di discriminazione. Spetta agli Stati membri prevedere sanzioni effettive e proporzionate, Guida al diritto 2013 nº 21 p.88-90 (IT)
  4. Benecke, Martina ; Böglmüller, Matthias: Arbeitsrecht: Anschein diskriminierender Einstellungspolitik eines Profifußballclubs, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2013 p.474-475 (DE)
  5. Aubert, Michel ; Broussy, Emmanuelle ; Cassagnabère, Hervé: Chronique de jurisprudence de la CJUE. Discrimination fondée sur l'orientation sexuelle, L'actualité juridique ; droit administratif 2013 p.1160-1161 (FR)
  6. Driguez, Laetitia: Discrimination en raison de l'orientation sexuelle, Europe 2013 Juin Comm. nº 274 p.34-35 (FR)
  7. Gardin, Alexia: L'actualité de la jurisprudence européenne et internationale. Nouvelles précisions sur la preuve de la discrimination fondée sur l'orientation sexuelle, Revue de jurisprudence sociale 2013 p.442-443 (FR)
  8. Nendl, Ž.: La jurisprudence de la Cour de justice et du Tribunal de l'Union européenne. Chronique des arrêts. Non-discrimination en raison de l'orientation sexuelle. Arrêts « Associația Accept », Revue du droit de l'Union européenne 2013 nº 2 p.366-373 (FR)
  9. Gärtner, Daniel: ERA-Forum : scripta iuris europaei 2013 p.449-452 (DE)
  10. Cocimano, Giuglia: Dicriminazione sessuale, Giurisprudenza italiana 2013 p.2653-2659 (IT)
  11. González Saquero, Pablo: Jurisprudencia – Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, Revista española de Derecho Europeo 2013 nº 47 p.193-230 (ES)
  12. Bergant-Rakočević, Vesna: Klub odgovarja za svojega "patrona", Pravna praksa 2013 nº 19 p.22-23 (SL)
  13. Tack, S. ; Van de Heyning, C.: S.E.W. ; Sociaal-economische wetgeving 2014 p.35-39 (NL)
  14. Calabrese, Bernardo: Dichiarazioni omofobiche nel calcio: il caso FC Steaua Bucarest e la discriminazione per orientamento sessuale alla Corte di giustizia, Rivista italiana di diritto del lavoro 2014 01 p.133-138 (IT)
  15. Nuică, Cristian: Cazul iresponsabilității juridice a angajatorului "de jure". Operativitatea "avertismentului" în materia nediscriminării, Noua Revistă de Drepturile omului 2014 Vol. 10 nº 1 p.37-52 (RO)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Cour d'appel de Bucarest) - Romania

Subject-matter

  • Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties
  • Social policy

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

troisième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Ó Caoimh

Advocate General

Jääskinen

Language(s) of the Case

  • Romanian

Language(s) of the Opinion

    Information not available