Comparative institutional analysis, the European Court of Justice and the general principle of non-discrimination -or- alternative tales on equality reasoning
Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Zeitschriftenaufsätze › Forschung
Standard
Comparative institutional analysis, the European Court of Justice and the general principle of non-discrimination -or- alternative tales on equality reasoning. / Croon-Gestefeld, Johanna.
in: European Law Journal, Jahrgang 19, Nr. 2, 01.03.2013, S. 153-173.Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Zeitschriftenaufsätze › Forschung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative institutional analysis, the European Court of Justice and the general principle of non-discrimination -or- alternative tales on equality reasoning
AU - Croon-Gestefeld, Johanna
PY - 2013/3/1
Y1 - 2013/3/1
N2 - The general principle of equality in European law is often held to be inconsistently applied by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and insufficiently supported by methodology. Contrary to this assessment, this paper argues that there is substantial coherence and theoretical underpinning to the court's equality reasoning. First, it shows that the respective case-law can be subdivided into three groups, depending on the level of scrutiny applied. Second, it establishes that the prevailing accounts have difficulty in explaining the court's choice of scrutiny due to their limited selection of analytical parameters. Third, it concludes that comparative institutional analysis offers an alternative framework to make the ECJ's testing approaches in equality matters more intelligible.
AB - The general principle of equality in European law is often held to be inconsistently applied by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and insufficiently supported by methodology. Contrary to this assessment, this paper argues that there is substantial coherence and theoretical underpinning to the court's equality reasoning. First, it shows that the respective case-law can be subdivided into three groups, depending on the level of scrutiny applied. Second, it establishes that the prevailing accounts have difficulty in explaining the court's choice of scrutiny due to their limited selection of analytical parameters. Third, it concludes that comparative institutional analysis offers an alternative framework to make the ECJ's testing approaches in equality matters more intelligible.
KW - Law
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84874391595&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/95a7dea0-ffff-375b-9863-efe535a28637/
U2 - 10.1111/eulj.12018
DO - 10.1111/eulj.12018
M3 - Journal articles
VL - 19
SP - 153
EP - 173
JO - European Law Journal
JF - European Law Journal
SN - 1351-5993
IS - 2
ER -