Case C-236/09, <i>Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier</i> v. <i>Conseil des ministres</i>, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 1 Marc

Tobler, Christa

doi:10.54648/cola2011079

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…95 That means it 'decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator'. 96 The focus is on the decision-making process (which resulted in an incoherent/inconsistent piece of legislation) 97 rather than on its substantive choices. Second, it is hard to see how the alternative approach put forward by Davies, and endorsed by Muir (that the legislature explains why certain distinctions between men and women made in legislation do not amount to discrimination), would in fact not be reasoning within a framing of equality law and thus within fundamental rights law.…”

Section: I    '-'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Lessons for the EU’s Fundamental Rights Policies

Kosta

2023

European Constitutional Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

E. M, EU Equality Law -The First Fundamental Rights Policy of the EU (Oxford University Press 2018) IElise Muir lets us know early on that her book 'is less an essay on equality law than an enquiry into the way a supranational organization, such as the EU, develops a fundamental rights policy'. 1 Equality law is chosen as the 'case study' 2 from which wider lessons will be drawn. 3 Muir puts forward two main arguments in this book which can be summarised as follows: first, creating a fundamental rights policy such as that on equal treatment through legislation based on a distinct legal basis understood as giving specific expression to a fundamental right 'creates a significant risk of over-constitutionalisation'. 4 That means the political debate on the definition of fundamental rights is limited 5 because such definition is too closely tied to primary law (the constitutional version of the right). Second, Muir deals with what she calls the 'governance' of EU equality law in domestic spheres. She maps the governance 'infrastructure' as set up by secondary legislation

show abstract

Section: I    '-'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Lessons for the EU’s Fundamental Rights Policies

Kosta

2023

European Constitutional Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Prohibition of Discrimination in the Union’s Layered System of Equality Law: From Early Staff Cases to the Mangold Approach

Tobler¹

2012

The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-Law - La Cour De Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the Court's case-law, a prohibition of discrimination can flow not only from enacted (written) Union law but also from (unwritten) general principles. Faced with the lack, or limited reach, of written non-discrimination law, the Court recognised the existence of two layers of general principles of equality, namely a general principle of equality tout court (i.e. a principle that is not linked to any discrimination ground) and a number of general principles of equality linked to particular discrimination grounds. In the resulting multi-level system, the Mangold line of case-law in particular raises questions not only about the relevance and function of the general principles of equality in the larger system of Union law, but also about the interrelation between the different layers of equality Jaw and the meaning of the prohibition of discrimination on the level of the general principles. The contribution traces the creation through the Court's case-law of the layered system of equality law and its practical implications.LLM, Europa Institutes of the Universities of Leiden (The Netherlands) and Base! (Switzerland).

show abstract

Matching code and law: achieving algorithmic fairness with optimal transport

Zehlike

Hacker

Wiedemann

2019

Data Min Knowl Disc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasingly, discrimination by algorithms is perceived as a societal and legal problem. As a response, a number of criteria for implementing algorithmic fairness in machine learning have been developed in the literature. This paper proposes the Continuous Fairness Algorithm (CFAθ ) which enables a continuous interpolation between different fairness definitions. More specifically, we make three main contributions to the existing literature. First, our approach allows the decision maker to continuously vary between specific concepts of individual and group fairness. As a consequence, the algorithm enables the decision maker to adopt intermediate "worldviews" on the degree of discrimination encoded in algorithmic processes, adding nuance to the extreme cases of "we're all equal" (WAE) and "what you see is what you get" (WYSIWYG) proposed so far in the literature. Second, we use optimal transport theory, and specifically the concept of the barycenter, to maximize decision maker utility under the chosen fairness constraints. Third, the algorithm is able to handle cases of intersectionality, i.e., of multi-dimensional discrimination of certain groups on grounds of several criteria. We discuss three main examples (credit applications; college admissions; insurance contracts) and map out the legal and policy implications of our approach. The explicit formalization of the trade-off between individual and group fairness allows this post-processing approach to be tailored to different situational contexts in which one or the other fairness criterion may take precedence. Finally, we evaluate our model experimentally.

show abstract

Case C-236/09, Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v. Conseil des ministres, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 1 Marc

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Investigating Lessons for the EU’s Fundamental Rights Policies

Investigating Lessons for the EU’s Fundamental Rights Policies

The Prohibition of Discrimination in the Union’s Layered System of Equality Law: From Early Staff Cases to the Mangold Approach

Matching code and law: achieving algorithmic fairness with optimal transport

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About