Abstract
The need for effective enforcement of the right to equal treatment, arguably, demands that the prohibition of victimisation, as enshrined in the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC), be vested with substantive meaning, and interpreted as a form of discrimination. Such a reading needs to be consistently applied taking into consideration all the related consequences thereof. The Dutch implementation and application of this provision illustrate some of the problems that might occur if victimisation is not considered a form of discrimination resulting in a negative effect on the enforcement of the right to equal treatment.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 9-23 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | NJCM Bulletin. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Mensenrechten |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2011 |
Bibliographical note
Interpretation at EU level, by national legislature and by national adjudicator is a form of exercising public power. The paper argues that in order for this exercise to be legitimate (i.e. in this particular case to fulfil its purpose to enhance effective enforcement of the right to equal treatment), it has to be consistent and has to take all the related consequences of the chosen interpretation into account. Accordingly, this paper addresses effect of the form and locus of exercise of public power on output legitimacy (effective enforcement of the right to equal treatment).Research programs
- SAI 2010-01 RRL
- SAI 2010-01-II RRL sub 2