Comparative institutional analysis, the European Court of Justice and the general principle of non-discrimination -or- alternative tales on equality reasoning

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearch

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{31f36ab62a6b4a84a4997be55f1a4a76,
title = "Comparative institutional analysis, the European Court of Justice and the general principle of non-discrimination -or- alternative tales on equality reasoning",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Law",
author = "Johanna Croon-Gestefeld",
year = "2013",
month = mar,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/eulj.12018",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "153--173",
journal = "European Law Journal",
issn = "1351-5993",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

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 -

DOI