Gender equality in administrative law
Gender Equality in Administrative Law
Concept and Legal Basis
Gender Equality in administrative law requires that public authorities and administrative bodies must:
Act without discrimination based on gender,
Ensure equal treatment and opportunities for all genders,
Promote substantive equality, which may include affirmative measures to address historical inequalities,
Consider gender perspectives in administrative policies, procedures, and decisions.
This principle is grounded in:
Constitutional guarantees in many countries,
International treaties such as CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women),
European Union law, especially Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU,
National equality acts and administrative procedure laws.
Application in Administrative Law
Gender equality influences various aspects of administrative law:
Non-discriminatory recruitment and promotion in public administration,
Fair access to public services and benefits,
Gender-sensitive policymaking and implementation,
Remedies against gender-based discrimination in administrative decisions,
Procedural fairness ensuring women's voices are heard in administrative processes.
Important Case Law Illustrating Gender Equality in Administrative Law
1. Case C-407/98, Abrahamsson and Anderson v. Sweden (1999) – European Court of Justice (ECJ)
Facts: Two male applicants challenged Sweden's policy of reserving certain posts in the public service for women to correct gender imbalance.
Issue: Whether such positive action policies are lawful under EU gender equality law.
Ruling: The ECJ upheld the policy, ruling that limited positive measures aimed at achieving gender balance are permissible under EU law as long as they do not unjustifiably discriminate against men.
Significance: This case clarified that gender equality includes scope for affirmative action in administrative decisions to promote substantive equality.
2. Case C-450/93, Kalanke v. Bremen (1995) – European Court of Justice
Facts: A woman was denied promotion due to a local affirmative action rule favoring women in cases of equal qualifications.
Issue: Whether automatic preference rules for women violate the principle of equal treatment.
Ruling: The ECJ held that automatic and unconditional preference is incompatible with EU law; measures must allow consideration of individual circumstances.
Significance: Defined limits on administrative discretion in applying gender equality measures — policies must be flexible and non-absolute.
3. KHO:1996:43 (Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, 1996)
Facts: A woman applicant was denied a position because of an informal practice favoring men.
Issue: Whether such informal discriminatory practices violated the principle of gender equality in public administration.
Ruling: The Court found the informal practice unlawful, emphasizing that equality must be respected in recruitment and promotion decisions.
Significance: Demonstrated Finnish administrative courts’ commitment to eliminating subtle gender discrimination.
4. Case C-158/97, Badeck v. Hessischer Ministerpräsident (2000) – ECJ
Facts: The German government used targeted measures to increase women’s representation in public service.
Issue: The compatibility of these measures with the principle of equal treatment.
Ruling: The Court confirmed that such targeted measures are allowed under EU law, provided they aim to correct existing inequalities and are proportionate.
Significance: Strengthened the legitimacy of gender equality programs in public administration.
5. Case C-66/85, Commission v. France (1990) – ECJ
Facts: France had legislation excluding women from certain positions in the civil service.
Issue: Whether such gender-based exclusion was lawful under EU law.
Ruling: The Court ruled the exclusion unlawful, affirming the principle of equal access to public employment irrespective of gender.
Significance: Reinforced the fundamental right to gender equality in public employment.
6. KHO:2010:20 (Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, 2010)
Facts: Complaint regarding unequal treatment of female employees in terms of maternity leave benefits.
Issue: Whether the administrative handling of benefits was discriminatory.
Ruling: The Court emphasized that administration must apply rules fairly and ensure gender-specific needs (like maternity leave) are properly accounted for without discrimination.
Significance: Recognized gender-specific administrative considerations as part of equality.
Summary
Gender Equality in Administrative Law means that:
Administrative authorities must act without discrimination,
Positive measures to promote equality are allowed but must be proportionate and not automatic,
Informal discriminatory practices are unlawful,
Access to public employment and services must be equal,
Gender-specific needs must be considered fairly,
Courts play a critical role in enforcing these principles.
The case law reflects a balance between prohibiting discrimination and allowing affirmative action to address structural inequalities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments