Judgment of the court second chamber 30 September 2004, case C-319/03, Serge Briheche v Ministre de l'Intérieur and Others, civil servant recruitment, French regulations, discrimination, directive 76/207
A man named Mr. S. Briheche was 48 years old. He was a widower not remarried and had a 12-year-old dependent child. This man applied for four civil servant recruitment contests. However, access to these contests is restricted to persons under the age of 45. The Minister of the Interior, the Minister of National Education and the Minister of Justice therefore refused to accept his candidacy on the grounds that he did not meet the age condition provided for by French regulations to register.
[...] Judgment of the court (Second Chamber) September 2004, Case C-319/03, Serge Briheche v Ministre de l'Intérieur and Others Facts A man named Mr. S. Briheche was 48 years old. He was a widower not remarried and had a 12-year-old dependent child. This man applied for four civil servant recruitment contests. However, access to these contests is restricted to persons under the age of 45. The Minister of the Interior, the Minister of National Education and the Minister of Justice therefore refused to accept his candidacy on the grounds that he did not meet the age condition provided for by French regulations to register. [...]
[...] Possible exceptions to the principle of equal treatment Regarding equal opportunities, the provision of the directive aims to authorize measures which aim to eliminate or reduce de facto inequalities that may exist in the reality of social life. The Court carried out a proportionality check of the measure. Finally, the Commission noted that such regulations give absolute and unconditional priority to the candidacies of certain categories of women. The Court therefore ruled that Article 2 paragraph 4 of the directive does not allow such regulation. [...]
[...] Solution and consequence on national law The Court therefore decides that this regulation is contrary to Article 3 paragraph 1 of Directive 76/207, as it results in discrimination based on sex. In addition, it cannot be admitted under Article 2 paragraph 4 of that directive because the Court found that this provision does not seek to eliminate inequalities or compensate them. Consequently, the Court holds that the principle of equal treatment as provided for by the directive precludes such national regulation. [...]
[...] Article 3 paragraph 1 states that this principle implies the absence of any discrimination based on sex in the conditions of employment Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Directive: "This Directive shall be without prejudice to measures to promote equal opportunity for men and women, in particular by removing existing inequalities which affect women's opportunities in the areas referred to in Article 1(1). Questions referred to the Court The Paris administrative court decided to stay the proceeding and to refer the following question to the Court. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee