European Union Anti-Discrimination Policy:
|
Non-discrimination is a fundamental principle of the EC legal order. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has articulated the underlying logic: "similar situations shall not be treated differently unless differentiation is objectively justified". (1) Notwithstanding the centrality of the principle of non-discrimination in the EC legal order, the Community has concentrated its equal opportunities policy on discrimination between women and men. The principle of sexual equality as encapsulated in Article 119 (equal pay between women and men) has been progressively consolidated and expanded upon; a variety of secondary legislation has sought to produce a comprehensive right to non-discrimination in the workplace between women and men. (2) Yet the role of the EU in combating other forms of discrimination remains much more ambiguous, not least in relation to racial discrimination. Despite numerous resolutions, reports and recommendations, the EU has yet to adopt any binding legislation in this sphere. The absence of any protective legislation has been a matter of some controversy in the past decade. The European Parliament has repeatedly requested that the Council of Ministers enact new anti-discrimination legislation covering racial discrimination, but the Council has demonstrated great reluctance to accede to these demands. Rather the emphasis has been on non-binding agreements exhorting national governments to take further action against racism.
This paper will provide a brief overview of policy action by the EU to date, and a consideration of how effective these measures have been. The second part of the paper turns to future developments. The Amsterdam Treaty provides the EU with the power to adopt binding legislation on, inter alia, racial discrimination. However, as the paper will detail, there are a number of unresolved questions concerning the content of any future anti-discrimination legislation. These revolve around three themes: the scope of any new legislation; the procedures established therein to challenge and remedy discrimination; and measures to combat institutionalised forms of discrimination. Part III starts from the premise that whilst anti-discrimination legislation at the EU level is a necessary element to the fight against racism, it will not, on its own, be sufficient. Action must also be taken to ensure that equal opportunities for ethnic minorities are promoted through non-legislative means, such as media and educational initiatives. Building on the experience in sexual equality, the paper also argues that the EU must scrutinise its own actions for latent discrimination, and must ensure that all areas of EU policy are consistent with the goal of non-discrimination. This is particularly relevant to immigration and asylum policy.
Whilst the EU has not issued directives or regulations on combating racism, its institutions have regularly expressed their concern at evidence of racial discrimination in the Member States, and their commitment to fighting the spread of racist and xenophobic attitudes. For reasons of space, this paper will not consider in detail the contents of the various reports and resolutions adopted, but seeks to provide a summary of the developing policies of the EU institutions. Most of the documents referred to have been recently published by the Commission in one volume, The European institutions in the fight against racism: selected texts. (3)
The issue of racism, and the response of the European Union, first came to the fore in the early 1980s. The policy debate initiated in the European Parliament, following the 1984 elections in which the parties of the extreme right-wing recorded notable successes, most especially in France, where the Front National won 10 of the 80 seats available. The Parliament agreed to establish a Committee of Inquiry into the rise of racism and fascism in Europe, and this delivered its report in December 1985. Known as the Evrigenis report, it provided comprehensive evidence of the growing problems in the Member States, and concluded that xenophobia was rising with "alarming intensity". (4) The report recommended a wide range of measures which could be adopted to combat this trend, and in particular concluded that measures taken at the national level should be supplemented by European-level action. As a starting point, the report proposed that the institutions agree a Joint Declaration, which could form a basis for EC policy in this field. To this end, the Commission, Council and the European Parliament signed the Joint Declaration against racism and xenophobia in June 1986. This expressed "the need to ensure that all acts or forms of discrimination are prevented or curbed." (5)
In retrospect, the Joint Declaration turned out to be something of a false dawn in policy on racial discrimination. In the years which followed, the determination signified in the declaration was lost amidst wrangling over the legal competence of the Community. The Parliament requested the adoption of anti-discrimination legislation by the EC (6), however, this was rejected by the Commission on the grounds that there was no appropriate legal base. As an alternative to binding legislation, the Commission submitted a proposal to the Council for a resolution on racism in 1988. (7) Whilst non-binding, it sought to move forward from the general principles expressed in the 1986 Joint Declaration and specifies a number of legal developments to be encouraged in the Member States. In particular, the Member States were urged to adopt anti-discrimination legislation where it did not already exist, and to enhance the effectiveness of existing legislation, through closing loopholes in the definition of discrimination, and in improving access to justice.
However, even this non-binding measure proved divisive within the Council of Ministers, and it was not until two years had passed that agreement was reached on a considerably diluted version of the original proposal. (8) Whilst all the Member States, and all the institutions, could agree to the principle that racial discrimination was impermissible and must be countered, there was a significant divergence of opinion on the question of the appropriate contribution the Community should make in this sphere. The Parliament reexamined the issue in depth with a second Committee of Inquiry in 1990. This produced the Ford report, which again highlighted the need for action, given evidence of rising racism and electoral advances for the extreme right-wing. (9)
The Ford report produced a total of 77 recommendations for action, several of which focused on the contribution which could be made by European legislation to combat racism. However, the proposals were not acted upon; the Commission stressed it was powerless in the face of the opposition in the Council, and that, in its opinion, the Community lacked the necessary legal competence to intervene in this area. The report itself had acknowledged the difficulty of the Commission's position: "the Commission has, in fact, been putting forward proposals and taking initiatives to combat racism and xenophobia ... [but] initiatives are either subject to long delays in the Council of Ministers or they are watered down, if not completely abandoned, by the Commission on the grounds of political necessities, believing that unanimous approval will not be obtained." (10) Undeterred, the Parliament kept up the pressure for action throughout the 1990s. For example, based on a proposal in the Ford report, an annual Parliamentary debate on racism was instituted, ensuring ongoing attention to this issue. Consistently, the Parliament has stressed the need for legislative action at the European level, to add substance to the numerous declarations of good intent.
The Parliament's lobbying has dovetailed with an increasingly well-organised NGO lobby on racism. The turning point in this respect may be identified as the creation in 1991 of the Starting Line Group. Based on an initiative from the UK Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), the Dutch National Bureau against Racism and the Churches Committee on Migrants in Europe (CCME), a group of legal experts from across the Member States were organised to prepare a draft directive for the elimination of racial discrimination. This was submitted in 1993 and has received the endorsement of more than 200 NGOs and the explicit approval of the European Parliament. (11) This was rapidly followed by the submission of the 'Starting Point', a proposal for an amendment of the Treaty to provide the EU with the competence to enact the Starting Line directive.
For its part, the European Council has regularly acknowledged the seriousness of this issue and the need for a more resolute policy response. Since 1991, the Presidency has regularly referred to racism in the conclusions issued after the biannual meetings of the Heads of State and Government of the Member States. (12) However, it has been largely unwilling to move beyond such symbolic declarations. On a number of occasions, the Council has issued more detailed recommendations to the Member States with regard to the policies to be adopted in the fight against racism. For instance, in 1995, the Council agreed two resolutions on the fight against racism, one regarding discrimination in employment, and the other relating to the contribution which can be made through educational policies. (13) In 1997, a further declaration on the fight against racism in the education field was agreed. (14)
In recent years though, there has been a discernible shift in the approach of the Council, and a new preparedness to consider substantive policy commitments at the EU level. The origins of this change in attitude lie in the 1994 decision at the Corfu European Council to establish a Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia "to formulate recommendations, geared to national and local circumstances, on cooperation between governments and the various social players to promote tolerance, understanding and harmony in relations with foreigners." (15) The Kahn Commission (as it was to become known, after its chair, Jean Kahn, President of the European Jewish Congress) consisted of a representative from each of the Member States, two MEPs (16), a representative from the Commission and an observer from the Council of Europe. The Commission's findings were unequivocal about the need to adopt binding legislation combating racial discrimination at the European level.
"The Community has already shown how effective it can be in combating discrimination on the basis of sex; it is appropriate that it should be given a similar mandate, and that it should adopt similar measures, to combating [sic] discrimination on grounds of race, religion or ethnic or national origins." (17)
To this end, the Kahn Commission concluded that an essential prerequisite to effective action by the Community would be the amendment of the Treaty to insert a specific reference to combating racial discrimination.
This message was endorsed by both Parliament and Commission; in December 1995, the Commission published a Communication on racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism (18) in which it stated its belief that the Treaties should be amended in the 1996 intergovernmental conference (IGC) to provide competence for the Community in this sphere. Furthermore, it indicated that this amendment should be with a view to the subsequent enactment of EC legislation on racial discrimination. (19) This view echoed the well-established position of the Parliament, which restated its view in November 1995 that Article 6 of the EC Treaty should be extended "to prohibit all forms of discrimination." (20)
The recommendations of the Commission, Parliament, Economic and Social Committee, the Kahn Commission, and several hundred NGOs (including churches, trades unions and migrants' rights groups) did not go unheeded, and the Member States were largely in agreement from the outset of the IGC as to the need for such an amendment. The Treaty of Amsterdam provides for a new Article 6a (21) in the Treaty establishing the European Community:
"Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation." (22)
The decision to extend the EU's competence has obviously been welcomed by those NGOs who have been campaigning for such a change. However, disappointment has been expressed at a number of aspects of the new article. First, the article requires unanimity in the Council to adopt legislation. Thus, even only one recalcitrant state could block further progress. Second, the Parliament has been assigned a relatively marginal role in the decision-making process. Whilst the general trend in the Treaty was to extend to the Parliament the right of codecision on legislation, Article 6a only provides for consultation of the Parliament. This is surprising given that this is a field in which the Parliament has taken a particular interest. Indeed, the Parliament, more than any other institution, was the driving force behind the Amsterdam amendment. The Starting Line Group had specifically expressed the hope that the article would possess direct effect, as is the case with Article 119 requiring equal pay between men and women. The significance of 'direct effect' is that individuals may then rely on the provisions of the article in national legal proceedings, with the ultimate sanction of recourse to the European Court of Justice to ensure that this is upheld. Thus, the article could provide practical and immediate benefit to victims of discrimination throughout the EU. However, this is not the case with the final article, which simply provides a discretionary power to the Council to adopt measures as they see fit.
Elsewhere, it is worth noting that the Treaty also enhances provisions concerning police and judicial cooperation on racism. A new Article K.1 states:
" Without prejudice to the powers of the European Community, the Union's objective shall be to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice by developing common action among the Member States in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and by preventing and combating racism and xenophobia."
Whilst the inclusion of an explicit reference to racism under Title VI should assist in raising the priority of this issue, one should not over-estimate the importance of this amendment. Even without a specific reference to racism in Title VI, the Justice and Home Affairs Council demonstrated that it was possible to adopt measures on racism. (23)
Perhaps in anticipation of Treaty amendment, there has been a heightened level of activity on racism within the institutions since 1995. In particular, the Commission submitted proposals to the Council for two initiatives. First, building on a proposal from the Parliament for a "European Year of Harmony among Peoples" (24), in 1995 the Commission proposed the specification of 1997 as 'European Year against Racism'. Second, in 1996, the Commission proposed the creation of a European Monitoring Centre on Racism (25). Again this may be traced back to an earlier proposal from the Parliament; in 1993 it called on the Commission "to set up a data bank and a system for monitoring activities in the field of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia." (26) Both of these proposals were subsequently approved by the Council of Ministers. (27)The Monitoring Centre has been established with the prime objective of supplying the "the European Community institutions and the Member States with objective, reliable and comparable data on racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism." (28) The Monitoring Centre is though limited to collecting information on racism in areas related to the competence of the EC, for example, employment and education. (29) Thus, it seems probable that the Centre will be less concerned with discrimination in other areas, such as the criminal law and policing, which lie outside the scope of the EC Treaty.
Thus, assuming the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty, the EU will soon have the necessary powers to change the direction of policy, away from exhortatory declarations and towards the provision of directly enforceable individual rights to equal treatment. Certainly, the lengthy process involved in reaching agreement on amending the Treaty will appear rather futile if there is no utilisation of the additional powers now provided. The Parliament has called for "an anti-discrimination Directive" (30) and the Council has committed itself to building "on the achievements of the European Year [against racism] and to take steps to ensure an appropriate follow-up after 1997." (31) To this end, the Council has decided that henceforth the Member States and the Commission should endeavour to support specific initiatives against discrimination on 21 March each year. (32) However, before considering other future measures which may be adopted, it is necessary to reflect on that which has already been accomplished.
As has been demonstrated, even in the absence of an express legal competence, the EU has been quite active during the past decade on the subject of racism. The most notable characteristic of the various initiatives taken has been the focus on symbolism. In this respect, it is relatively easy to criticise the efforts of the European institutions. A familiar complaint has been that the EU is "long on rhetoric, but short on action" when it comes to anti-discrimination policy. (33) Before proceeding to consider this critique, it is only fair to highlight the important contribution made by the non-binding, or 'soft law' measures which have been adopted.
Soft law may serve three functions:
Awareness-raising: one of the most obvious functions of the Joint Declarations, Parliamentary reports, etc. is to create a consciousness of the problem. As with the fight against sexual discrimination, the first step is to combat the invisibility of many forms of discrimination; to demonstrate the prevalence of discrimination throughout society and the urgent need for action to promote equality. The target audience varies: for example, measures such as the European Year against Racism are clearly aimed at the general public, reminding them of the seriousness of the issue, challenging them to examine their own attitudes towards racism. Other measures have a narrower audience, but are no less significant. In particular, many of the EU reports and recommendations have contributed to raising awareness of the problem amongst policy-makers both inside and outside the European institutions. In particular, the various soft law measures have played a central role in legitimising this as an appropriate issue for EU intervention. Symbolic measures are easy to criticise because it is difficult to point to any direct impact they have on the situation on the ground. This is especially true when these measures are adopted at the European, or international level. However, to the extent that they form part of the incremental process of changing the attitudes of the responsible authorities, they make a significant and indispensable contribution.
Anticipating future developments: Partly because of its awareness-raising role, soft law may contribute to future legal developments. In the first place, declarations, etc. may commit the EU to achieving a specific policy objective. For example, the 1986 Joint Declaration made an initial commitment on the behalf of the institutions to combat racial discrimination. Thereafter it was difficult to argue that fighting racism was not a policy objective of the EU. Not only does soft law develop new goals for the EU, but it creates an expectation that the EU will take further and more effective action if these goals are not realised. Taking an example from sexual equality policy, in 1991 the Commission issued a non-binding Recommendation on dignity in the workplace between women and men. (34) The Recommendation was an attempt to tackle the problem of sexual harassment through an approach based on voluntary compliance by the Member States and employers. However, when a Commission report in 1996 concluded that progress since the Recommendation had been insufficient, the Commission was able to argue that it was justified in now seeking to have recourse to binding legislation. The soft law measures created an expectation that if they failed to prove sufficiently effective, binding legislation would follow. This process is in evidence vis-à-vis racism. Non-binding measures, such as the 1990 Council Resolution, have been tried and tested and have not proven sufficiently effective. That is the implicit conclusion of the Kahn Commission, and is supported by evidence of weak implementation by the Member States of the 1990 Resolution, discussed more fully in the next section. Therefore, a legitimate expectation has been created that the EU will now progress to the adoption of binding legislation to give force to its earlier undertakings.
Stimulating national policy initiatives: Aside from the preparatory role soft law may play, it is important not to overlook its most immediate objective, which is to encourage the voluntary adoption of measures at the national level. The recourse to voluntary mechanisms is consistent with the Commission's broader interpretation of the principle of subsidiarity. (35) The Commission has indicated that this should be taken to imply a preference for non-binding, and less intrusive forms of regulation, with binding EU legislation a last resort option. The preference for soft law reflects a desire to ensure flexibility for Member States in the implementation of EC policies. Certainly it is true that soft law provides Member States with more discretion to tailor policies to specific national legal and cultural traditions. Whilst this may be beneficial, flexibility must be balanced against efficacy; there is an ever-present danger that Member States may rely on the non-enforceability of soft law measures to avoid taking the necessary measures. Indeed, at times NGOs have complained that soft law is employed merely to deflect attention from the lack of more substantive action by the EU institutions.
Some soft law measures are successful in provoking relevant national legal developments. Returning to the example of the Commission's Recommendation on Dignity at Work, subsequent research concluded that it did give rise to some additional legislative action in the Member States. In several Member States where legislation was already under consideration, the Recommendation helped shape the final content of new measures at the national level. This may not have been regarded as sufficient, but it did nonetheless provide some practical benefit in promoting the need to tackle sexual harassment. (36) However, anti-racism measures appear to have had less impact. For example, two years after the Joint Declaration, a Parliamentary Committee concluded: "there is little evidence of a generally favourable trend in the wake of the Joint Declaration. The spectre of xenophobia continues to haunt the political stage of Europe. No drop in the number of attacks on immigrants by right-wing extremists has been registered. The electoral success of racist slogans, confirms that there is cause for concern." (37) The 1990 Council Resolution also proved to be relatively ineffectual. No evidence has been adduced of subsequent implementing action in the Member States to meet the recommendations contained therein. To the contrary, many of the proposals have still not been complied with. For example, Article 2(b) of the 1990 Resolution proposed the acceptance by the Member States of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), including Article 14 which allows for an individual complaint procedure. Despite its weaknesses, this would have at least provided individuals with an alternative means of challenging discrimination from those procedures which already exist in national law. However, the majority of the Member States have still not accepted Article 14, and Ireland has not yet even ratified the CERD, although it signed the Convention in 1968.
More fundamentally, Article 2(c) of the 1990 Resolution requests the "resolute application of laws aimed at preventing or curbing discrimination or xenophobic acts and the preparation of such laws by those Member States which have not yet done so." Again the evidence suggests a significant degree of non-compliance by the Member States. In 1996, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions completed a major study into national legislation governing racial discrimination in the workplace. (38) The report recorded that "measures to combat discrimination are variable in their scope and effectiveness, and in some cases hardly exist." (39). Even in those states where legislative protection against discrimination did exist, serious barriers remained to the practical utilisation of the legislation. For example, in Greece, no specific legislative protection against racial discrimination in employment exists. Theoretically, it would be possible for an individual to utilise the CERD to challenge discrimination in employment, as the Greek Constitution provides that international conventions adopted by law, and which have entered into force, become an "integral part of Greek domestic law and shall prevail over any contrary provision of law." (40) Unsurprisingly though, this a cumbersome means of recourse and there is no apparent evidence of any case having been brought via this route.
As stated earlier, soft law is a legitimate strategy, but its effectiveness is significantly reduced where there is not a preparedness to go further if non-binding measures prove inadequate to meet the stated objectives. There is little purpose in repeatedly returning to the same approach where past experience has demonstrated that it is insufficient. Soft law tends to be at its most effective when it is founded on an already existing legal instrument. This assists in understanding why the Dignity at Work Recommendation did have an impact in the Member States, whereas other measures not underpinned by directives or regulations have been largely ignored. (41) It has been evident for some time that a more effective EU policy on racism must contemplate the introduction of binding legislation providing practically enforceable protection against discrimination. This was the conclusion of the report for the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, it has been the opinion of the European Parliament for many years now, and more recently was endorsed by the Kahn Commission. The support of the Kahn Commission is particularly significant as this body was mainly composed of representatives of the Member States, indicating some recognition within the national governments of the need for further action. The Commission has also signalled support for new legislation; its 1995 Communication states:
" The Commission believes that Community legislation designed to guarantee minimum levels of protection against discrimination throughout the Community would constitute a highly significant step towards full achievement of the Treaty objectives." (42)
The Amsterdam amendment provides the EU with a clear legal base for such action, and there must now be a legitimate expectation that the Commission will propose an anti-discrimination directive following the ratification of the new Treaty. However, many issues remain unresolved concerning the contents of such a directive; will it simple replicate the existing sexual equality legislation or will it seek to bring a more innovative approach to realising equal opportunities? The choices facing the EU in preparing an anti-discrimination directive are the focus of section 2 of this paper.
1. Ruckdeschel & Co. and Hansa-Lagehaus Stroh & Co. V Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen [1977] ECR 1753 at para. 16-17
2. For example, Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion and working conditions; OJL 39, 9.2.76
3. European Commission (1997) Luxembourg: OOPEC
4. European Parliament (1985) " Committee of Inquiry into the rise of fascism and racism in Europe" Luxembourg; at p. 67
5. OJ 1986 C 158/1, 11.6.86. See: Annex 1
6. Resolution on the Joint Declaration against racism and xenophobia and an action programme by the Council of Ministers, OJC 69/12, 13.2.89.
7. European Commission (1988) " Communication from the Commission to the Council on the fight against racism and xenophobia" OJ 1988 C 214/32, 29.6.88
8. OJC 157, 27.6.1990.
9. European Parliament (1991) "Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Racism and Xenophobia" Luxembourg: European Parliament
10. Ibid., at p. 99
11. In two separate resolutions, in 1993 and 1994, the Parliament urged the Commission to take the Starting Line proposal as a basis for the preparation of a directive to be submitted to the Council of Ministers. (1993 resolution, OJ 1993 C 342/19, 20.12.93; 1994 resolution, para. 9, OJ 1994 C 323/154, 20.11.94. See: Annex 2)
12. For example, at the Copenhagen meeting of the European Council, the conclusions stated that "the Member States will do the utmost to protect immigrants, refugees and others against expressions and manifestations of racism and intolerance". (21-22 June 1993, Presidency Conclusions)
13. Resolution on the Fight against Racism and Xenophobia in the fields of Employment and Social Affairs (OJ 1995 C 296/13), Resolution on the Response of Educational Systems to the Problems of Racism and Xenophobia (OJ 1995 C 312/1).
14. Declaration by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 24 November 1997 on the fight against racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism in the youth field, OJC 368/1, 5.12.97
15. Bulletin of the European Union (6-1994) point I.29
16. Glyn Ford (Socialist, UK) and Arie Oostlander (EPP, Netherlands)
17. European Council Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia (1995) "Final Report" Ref. 6906/1/95 Rev 1 Limite RAXEN 24 Brussels: General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, at p. 59
18. European Commission (1995) " Communication from the Commission on racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism and Proposal for a Council Decision designating 1997 as European Year against Racism" COM (95) 653, 13.12.95
19. Ibid ., at p. 19
20. Resolution of the European Parliament on racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism, 26 October 1995. (OJC 308/140, 20.11.95) See: Annex 3
21. The Treaty of Amsterdam provides for the renumbering of the articles of the Treaty. Following this process, Article 6a shall become Article 13. However, for reasons of consistency this paper shall use the article numbers prior to renumbering.
22. EU (1997) " Treaty of Amsterdam" Luxembourg: OOPEC
23. In July 1996, the Council adopted a Joint Action concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia. (OJ 1996 L 185/5) See: Annex 4.
24. Para. 20, Resolution of the European Parliament on the resurgence of racism and xenophobia in Europe and the danger of right-wing extremist violence, 21 April 1993. (OJC 150/127, 31.5.1993).
25. European Commission (1996) "Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) establishing a European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia" COM (96) 615, 27.11.96
26. Para. 14, Resolution of the European Parliament on the resurgence of racism and xenophobia in Europe and the danger of right-wing extremist violence, 21 April 1993. (OJC 150/127, 31.5.1993).
27. Resolution of the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council concerning the European Year against Racism (1997) OJ 1996 C 237/1, 23.7.96; Regulation 1035/97 establishing a European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia OJ 1997 L 151, 10.6.97
28. European Commission (1996) "Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) establishing a European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia",at p. 3
29. Article 3(3)
30. Para. 14, Resolution on racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism and the European Year against Racism (1997) [Ford, G & Oostlander, A] 30.1.97 OJC 55/17, 24.2.97. See: Annex 5.
31. Declaration by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 24 November 1997 on the fight against racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism in the youth field, OJC 368/1, 5.12.97
32. ibid.
33. Lomas, Debates of the European Parliament , No. 2-374/56, 14.2.89
34. OJ 1992 L, 49/1, adopted 27.11.91
35. See further: European Commission (1993) "Commission report to the European Council on the adaptation of existing Community legislation to the subsidiarity principle" COM (93) 595
36. New legislation on sexual harassment was introduced or under preparation in 7 Member States, and additional measures were taken in several other Member States, for example, through collective agreements. (European Commission (1996) " Consultation of management and labour on the prevention of sexual harassment at work" COM (96) 373, 24.7.96)
37. European Parliament (1988) "Report of the Political Affairs Committee on the Joint Declaration against racism and xenophobia and an action programme by the Council of Ministers" A2-0261/88, 11.11.88, at p. 11
38. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (1996) "Preventing racism at the workplace - a report on 16 European countries" (Report by Wrench, J) Luxembourg: OOPEC
39. Ibid., at p. 147
40. Article 28(1), cited in Forbes, I & Mead, G (1992) " Measure for Measure: a comparative analysis of measures to combat racial discrimination in the Member Countries of the European Community" Equal Opportunities Study Group, University of Southampton. Research Series No. 1. London: Department of Employment
41. The Recommendation was supported by the pre-existence of the 1976 Equal Treatment Directive. (Kenner, J (1995) " Trends in European Social Policy. Essays in memory of Malcolm Mead" Aldershot: Dartmouth)
42. Commission (1995) " Communication from the Commission on racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism and Proposal for a Council Decision designating 1997 as European Year against Racism" COM (95) 653, 13.12.95, at p. 19
European Parliament: 12/1997