DOCSLIB.ORG

SWD(2020) 50 Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SWD(2020) 50 Final EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 5.3.2020 SWD(2020) 50 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the relevant provisions in the Directive 2006/54/EC implementing the Treaty principle on ‘equal pay for equal work or work of equal value’ {SWD(2020) 51 final} EN EN 1. INTRODUCTION 4 Purpose and scope of the evaluation 4 2. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 6 2.1. Description of the initiative 6 2.2. Baseline 8 3. PROCESS, METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS 11 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE OF PLAY 13 5. ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 16 5.1. Effectiveness 17 5.1.1. Implementation of the concepts of ‘equal pay’, ‘same work’ and ‘work of equal value’ in national legislation and practice 17 5.1.2. Effectiveness of EU action in terms of for access to justice 22 5.1.3. Effectiveness of actions in terms of monitoring and enforcement 28 5.1.4. Effectiveness of actions to tackle occupational segregation 30 5.1.5. Effectiveness of the Recommendation 32 5.1.6. Effectiveness in terms of the results and impacts achieved 35 5.2. Efficiency 40 5.3. Relevance 47 5.3.1 Relevance to original needs 47 5.3.2. Relevance to current needs 47 5.4. Coherence 53 5.4.1 Internal coherence 53 5.4.2. Coherence with other EU interventions related to the objective of reducing gender discrimination and contributing to gender equality 54 5.4.3 External coherence with wider EU policies 59 5.4.4. External coherence with international obligations and standards 61 5.5. EU Added Value 63 6. CONCLUSIONS 65 ANNEXES 70 Annex 1 - Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the evaluation 71 Annex 2 - Synthesis of stakeholders consultation activities 74 1 Annex 3 – Methodological issues on the gender pay gap indicator and its decomposition using the Structure of Earnings Survey microdata 84 Annex 4 - Intervention logic 89 Annex 6 – Provisions within the scope of the evaluation 93 Annex 7 – Relevant CJEU case-law 95 Annex 8 – Concept and measurement of gender pay discrimination 96 2 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union DG JUST Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers EIGE European Institute for Gender Equality EMCO Employment Committee EQUINET European Network of Equality Bodies ETUC European Trade Union Confederation EU European Union EU Charter Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union GDP Gross Domestic Product GDPR General Data Protection Regulation GPG Gender Pay Gap ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ILO International Labour Organisation NGOs Non-governmental organisations OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development PC Public consultation conducted by DG JUST RSB Regulatory Scrutiny Board SDG Sustainable Development Goal SMEs Small and medium-sized enterprises TEU Treaty on European Union TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 3 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose and scope of the evaluation Equal pay for equal work or work of equal value is one of the European Union’s founding principles1. The principle of equal pay between women and men has been enshrined in the Treaties since 1957 (Article 157(1-2)). Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC implements the principle of equal pay by providing that, for the same work or for work of equal value, direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex is prohibited in all aspects and conditions of remuneration. This principle, above all, reflects a human rights issue that recognises that male and female workers have equal individual dignity, but it is also an economic issue that benefits overall potential for production through more effective use of skills. However, the effective implementation and enforcement of this principle remains a big challenge2, partially reflected in the persistence and magnitude of the gender pay gap3 (GPG) of 15.7% for the EU28 in 2018. One of the five main priorities of the 2016-2019 strategic engagement for gender equality4 is to reduce pay, earnings and pension gaps between women and men, thereby addressing higher risk of poverty among women5. The gender pay gap in unadjusted form is also one of the three indicators for gender equality included in the social scoreboard6 that the Commission uses to monitor the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights7. Gender equality has also been a prominent topic within the European Semester8 with the gender pay gap addressed in the Country Specific Recommendations for a number of countries as recitals and as specific recommendation in Estonia. This staff working document (SWD) provides the results of the REFIT9 evaluation of relevant provisions (see Annex 6) in EU law implementing the Treaty principle on ‘equal pay for equal work or work of equal value’ (TFEU Article 157 (1-2)). These are Directive 2006/54/EC10, complemented by the Pay Transparency Recommendation11. In the remainder of this document, Directive 2006/54/EC is referred to as ‘the Directive’ while the Pay Transparency Recommendation is referred to as ‘the Recommendation’. The two elements are jointly referred to as ‘the EU action’. 1 The principle of equal pay between women and men has been enshrined in the Treaties since 1957 (Article 157(1-2)). Article 4 of the Directive 2006/54/EC implements the principle of equal pay by providing that, for the same work or for work of equal value, direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sex is prohibited in all aspects and conditions of remuneration. 2 Foubert P., The enforcement of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value. A legal analysis of the situation in the EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, ELLN for the European Commission, 2017. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/834d34ab-2d87-11e8-b5fe-01aa75ed71a1 3 The gender pay gap is the difference between average gross hourly earnings of male and female paid employees, expressed as a percentage of the former. Source: Eurostat [sdg_05_20], See also http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Gender _pay_gap_statistics. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-equality-strategy_en. 5 18% of women over 65 had an income below the relative poverty threshold in 2018 compared to 13.4% of men [Eurostat, ilc_li02]. 6 See https://composite-indicators.jrc.ec.europa.eu/social-scoreboard/ 7 Proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 17 November 2017 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/deeper-and-fairer-economic-and-monetary-union/european-pillar-social-rights_en 8 The European semester is the framework for the coordination of economic policies across the EU. See https://ec.europa.eu/info/business- economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policy-coordination/eu-economic-governance-monitoring-prevention-correction/european-semester_en 9 The Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme, or REFIT, is the Commission’s programme for ensuring that EU legislation remains fit for purpose and delivers the results intended by EU lawmakers. 10 Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), OJ L 204, 26.7.2006. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32006L0054 11 Commission Recommendation of 7 March 2014 on strengthening the principle of equal pay between men and women through transparency. OJ L 69/112, 8.3.2014. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014H0124 4 The evaluation’s scope is limited to analysing the relevant provisions of Directive 2006/54/EC with a view to improving implementation of the equal pay principle, its enforcement and protection of victims of discrimination, taking into account other existing legal provisions (Art. 157 TFEU, having a direct horizontal effect) and the non-binding 2014 Pay Transparency Recommendation and their impact. This scope allows the evaluation to focus on the implementation of the legal provisions related to protecting the victims of pay discrimination and the related pay transparency measures. Given the lack of robust quantitative indicators of pay discrimination, this evaluation looks at the changes to the gender pay gap, as a broad context indicator on pay differences and relies on qualitative sources to illustrate the impact of the relevant legislative measures. The Commission’s action plan for 2017-201912 provides that the Commission will assess the opportunity for targeted amendments to the Directive with the aim, in particular, of improving pay transparency. Gender-focused commentary and the discourse on gender rights following the #MeToo movement have indirectly fuelled demands for better pay transparency. Several countries, such as Germany, France, Portugal and Ireland, have recently introduced new measures on pay transparency. Gender equality issues became more prominent internationally and the attention given to women’s rights in the public sphere clearly increased policy action to tackle gender equality issues. A 2013 report on implementing the Directive13 and a 2017 report on implementing the Recommendation14 highlight persistent problems with the practical enforcement and legal interpretation of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value. These problems are confirmed by cases brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)15 and by cases reported by the equality bodies16 responsible for enforcing the Directive. In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines17, this evaluation assesses the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value of the EU’s legal provisions on equal pay18.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THREE MODELS of EQUALITY and EUROPEAN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW Olivier De Schutter*
    THREE MODELS OF EQUALITY AND EUROPEAN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW Olivier De Schutter* 1. Three Models of Equality Since the European Court of Justice first declared, in the 1976 Defrenne (‘No. 2’) case,1 that the principle of equal pay between men and women for the same work stated in Article 119 of the EEC Treaty should be recognized a direct effect in the relationships between private parties, at a time when the European legislator had just started to implement that provision of the Treaty of Rome,2 European law has made considerable progress in outlawing different forms of discrimination. In order to evaluate both what has been achieved thirty years later and which questions still remain, this article seeks to map the territory of European anti-discrimination law by locating its acquis within a broader theoretical framework. There are of course a number of ways to classify competing understandings of the requirement of equality, in order to identify the different “models” into which the principle of equal treatment may translate at the level of concrete legal rules. In this article, I seek to distinguish three such models, which I believe may serve to highlight the most important dilemmas facing European Law in its treatment of that principle. The three models are defined on the basis of two questions which, I would submit, remain to a large extent open at the current stage of development of European anti-discrimination law. A first question concerns the aim of this body of law. In the implementation of the principle of equal treatment,
    [Show full text]
  • The European Court of Justice and Its Inconsistent Approach to the Doctrine of Direct Effect
    14. Resolution CM/ResCMN(2011)8 on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Ukraine (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 March 2011 at the 1110th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) [Електрон. ресурс]. – Режим доступу: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc. jsp?id=1769033&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet= EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383. 15. Resolution CM/ResCMN(2013)8 on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Ukraine (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 December 2013 at the 1187bis meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) [Електрон. ресурс]. – Режим доступу: https://wcd.coe.int/ ViewDoc.jsp?id=2143699&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColo rIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383#P79_13700. V. Isakova1 THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE AND ITS INCONSISTENT APPROACH TO THE DOCTRINE OF DIRECT EFFECT The issue pertaining to the circumstances under which individuals may seek enforcement of EU directives has proven to be one of the most contro- versial areas of EU law [17, p. 328]. This is primarily due to the Court of Justice’s approach to and application of the principles surrounding this practice. This article will critically consider the development and current application of the doctrine of direct effect in a bid to determine whether there is any justification for the Court’s approach to the matter. It will ulti- mately be argued that there is no apparent justification for the Court’s in- consistent and arbitrary application of the doctrine and that this therefore undermines the underlying purpose of the doctrine: to protect individuals from Community law violations.
    [Show full text]
  • Pittsburgh Papers on the European Union
    PITTSBURGH PAPERS ON THE EUROPEAN UNION General Principles of EU Law The Ghost in the Platonic Heaven in Need of Conceptual Clarification Constanze Semmelmann McGill University/University of St. Gallen Abstract General principles are en vogue in EU law – and in need of conceptual clarification. A closer look at several concepts of principle in legal philosophy and legal theory sheds light upon the concept of general principles in EU law. A distinction between an aprioristic model of principle and a model of principle informed by legal positivism may contribute to clarifying the genesis of a (general) principle in EU law, as well as its nature and functions. This paper demonstrates that an evolution has taken place from a reliance on seemingly natural law inspired reflections of general principles via the desperate search to ground general principles in various kinds of sources based on a more or less sound methodology towards an increasing reliance on strictly positivistic approaches. Against this backdrop, general principles are likely to lose significance where there are other norms while retaining an important yet uncontrollable role where the traditional canon of sources is silent. Keywords: European Union law; General principles of EU law; legal interpretation EU law; teleology About the Author Constanze Semmelmann is Wainwright Junior Fellow, McGill University, Montreal, Canada and lecturer, University of St.Gallen, Switzerland. ISSN: 2161-6590 | 10.5195/PPEU.2013.7 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. This site is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program, and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Horizontal Effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights Of
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UCL Discovery The Horizontal Effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Rediscovering the Reasons for Horizontality Eleni Frantziou* Abstract This article analyses the horizontal effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Horizontal effect has been an integral part of the Union’s application of fundamental rights, especially in the field of equality. However, the codification of fundamental rights in the Charter raises important questions as to how horizontal effect will continue to apply in the EU, particularly in the aftermath of the Court’s rulings in cases such as Dominguez and AMS. This article argues that the emphasis on prior approaches to horizontal effect in recent rulings fails to address the more profound issues that the horizontal effect of a fundamental rights catalogue raises. Meaningfully engaging with horizontality involves answering directional questions: what role does the Charter play in the Union’s constitutional framework and what can horizontality achieve in respect of EU rights protection? Overall, the article calls for a new approach in the Charter context, in which horizontality can be assessed against a sound theoretical framework, conscious of the role of rights in society rather than their positioning in different types of legislation. I. Introduction Just over five years ago, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union acquired legally binding force.1 Its provisions include the rights enshrined in the ECHR, a broad set of employment rights, as well as EU citizens’ rights, to mention but a few.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution and Impact of the Case-Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC
    The Evolution and Impact of the Case-Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC Justice Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union, 2012 ISBN 978-92-79-27787-0 doi: 10.2838/38584 © European Union, 2012 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Luxembourg PRINTED ON WHITE CHlorine-fREE paper The Evolution and Impact of the Case-Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC European Network of Legal Experts in the non-discrimination field Written by Colm O‘Cinneide Supervised by Christa Tobler European Commission Directorate-General for Justice Manuscript completed in November 2012 This report was financed by and prepared for the use of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice. It does not necessarily represent the Commission’s official position. The text of this report was drafted by Colm O’Cinneide and supervised by Christa Tobler on the authority of the European Network of Legal Experts in the non-discrimination field (on
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between European Union Law and National Legal Systems
    United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law The Relationship between European Union Law and National Legal Systems What is Union law? Primary law and secondary law. Forms of EU secondary law: regulations, directives, decisions and international agreements concluded by EU. "Unwritten" legal principles. The Commission "guardian of the Treaties": action for failure to fulfil EU law. The role of the European Court of Justice ("ECJ"): the preliminary questions from national courts. Direct effect of the Treaties Van Gend en Loos (1963) (customs union) Conditions for direct effect: clear and unconditional obligation, not contingent on any discretionary implementing measure. "Horizontal" direct effect (i.e. between two private litigants): BRT v SABAM (1974) (competition law), Defrenne v Sabena (1976) (equal pay). Not all provisions of the Treaty have direct effect: e.g. Casati (1981) (free movement of capital) The principle of primacy of Union law Costa v ENEL (1964) " the law stemming from the Treaty, an independent source of law, could not, …, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed … The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights" Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (1970): relationship with national constitutions and the emergence of fundamental rights. www.un.org/law/avl United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law Simmenthal (1978): the duty not to apply a provision conflicting with EU law. Factortame I (1990): non application of rules on national remedies. Constanzo (1989): the duty also applies to administrative authorities, not only courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamental Social Rights in the European Union
    E-LEARNING NATIONAL ACTIVE CHARTER TRAINING SOCIAL AND NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS IN THE EMPLOYMENT FIELD IN THE CHARTER MARCH 2019 VERSION Project implemented with financial support from the European Union’s Justice Programme. Emmanuelle Bribosia Louise Fromont Areg Navasartian Isabelle Rorive 1 Foreword The ULB team which wrote this handbook would like to extend their gratitude to the European University Institute, the Institut d’Études Européennes of the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and the members of the working group for their help and their contributions to the casesheets: Cécile Barbier, associated researcher at the Institute for European Studies, Saint-Louis University, Belgium Isabela Delia Popa, attorney-at-law, Romania Elise Dermine, professor at ULB and attorney-at-law, Belgium Daniel Dumont, professor at ULB, Belgium Felicia Rosioru, associated professor, Babes-Bolyai University, Romania Jean-François Neven, professor at ULB and Chamber President of the Labour Court of Brussels, Belgium Maribel Pascual, professor at Pompeu Fabra University, Spain Agathe Rivière, PhD researcher at Strasbourg University, France Aida Torres, professor at Pompeu Fabra University, Spain This handbook has been created for the purposes of the e-NACT project. It consists of three parts: a state of play, a selection of case law relating to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the social rights it contains, and a set of hypotheticals that were discussed during the e-NACT workshop on social rights held on 4-5 October 2018 at the Institut d’Études Européennes of the Université Libre de Bruxelles. The workshop was an occasion to comment on and amend a draft version of the handbook.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Horizontal Direct Effect of Directives
    Horizontal Direct Effect of Directives: Reform Long Overdue? By Beatrice Grasso Introduction Since its introduction in the European legal system, the principle of direct effect has generated very conflicting opinions. On the one hand, in fact, it is seen as fundamental to protect citizens’ rights in a decentralised system of enforcement such as that of the European Union;1 on the other, however, it has been identified as an inappropriate exercise of judicial activism on part of the Court of Justice of the European Union (previously known as European Court of Justice; hereinafter referred to as ‘Court of Justice’ or ‘the Court’), leading to the excessive erosion of individual Member States’ sovereignty.2 This issue became particularly controversial with respect to directives, which, because of their nature, are more dependent on Member States’ willingness to implement them promptly and correctly, with disagreements emerging especially in relation to their potential to confer rights directly on individuals.3 In light of the great importance of the principle of direct effect, particularly in relation to directives, and its potential repercussions on the rights and obligations of individual citizens, this article seeks to provide a critical evaluation of said principle and of the alternative means developed by the Court of Justice in order to mitigate disadvantages caused to individuals by the absence of horizontal direct effect for directives. In order to achieve this objective, a brief overview of the development of direct effect will be provided firstly. Subsequently, consideration will be given to the reasons why the Court of Justice refused horizontal direct effect for directives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Principle of Equal Treatment: Widening and Deepening
    OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 23/11/2010, SPi Craig_de_burca_Chapter20 FIRST PROOF page 611 23.11.2010 4:32am 20 THEPRINCIPLEOFEQUAL TREATMENT: WIDENING AND DEEPENING Mark Bell* A. INTRODUCTION Writing in the first edition of this book, Gillian More traced how the principle of equal treatment had developed since the founding Treaties.1 There were various provisions in those Treaties which sought to establish equal treatment between the factors of production within the internal market.2 The role of equal treatment in this context was instrumental; free movement and the integration of markets within the EU would be hindered if discrimination against imports, foreign companies, and migrant workers was allowed to persist. Over time, the principle of equal treatment evolved from this market integration rationale and alternative, more autonomous justifications for equal treatment began to emerge. The Court recognized equal treatment as one of its general principles of law,3 and accordingly treats it as a potential ground for judicial review. More boldly, in 1978, the Court deemed non-discrimination on the ground of sex to form part of the ‘fundamental personal human rights’ which it protects.4 Gillian More recognized that a process of constitutionalization was underway and she * Professor, Centre for European Law and Integration, School of Law, University of Leicester. The abbreviation ‘TEU’ used after a Treaty article refers to the Treaty on European Union in the version in force after 1 December 2009, while ‘TFEU’ refers to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. ‘EC’ after a Treaty article refers to a provision of the European Community Treaty in the version in force until 30 November 2009; similarly, ‘EU’ refers to an article of the Treaty on European Union in the version in force until that date.
    [Show full text]