障害児の親への差別にECJ判決

本ブログで２回にわたって紹介してきた注目の事件に、去る７月１７日、欧州司法裁判所が判決を下しました。障害児の親に対する差別的扱いは、それ自体が禁止される差別となります。

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&newform=newform&Submit=Submit&alljur=alljur&jurcdj=jurcdj&jurtpi=jurtpi&jurtfp=jurtfp&alldocrec=alldocrec&docj=docj&docor=docor&docop=docop&docav=docav&docsom=docsom&docinf=docinf&alldocnorec=alldocnorec&docnoj=docnoj&docnoor=docnoor&typeord=ALLTYP&allcommjo=allcommjo&affint=affint&affclose=affclose&numaff=&ddatefs=&mdatefs=&ydatefs=&ddatefe=&mdatefe=&ydatefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=PSOC&mots=&resmax=100

本ブログでは、まず昨年１０月、訴えがECJに付託されたという記事を紹介しました。

http://eulabourlaw.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2007/10/post_6587.html（障害児の親に対する差別）

次に、今年２月に、ECJ法務官の意見が出されたところでもう一報。

http://eulabourlaw.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2008/02/post_648e.html（障害児の親に対する差別は障害者差別か？）

そして、今回の判決になるわけです。

>1.      Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (2)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled. Where an employer treats an employee who is not himself disabled less favourably than another employee is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and it is established that the less favourable treatment of that employee is based on the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such treatment is contrary to the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by Article 2(2)(a).

2.      Directive 2000/78, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (3) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of harassment laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled. Where it is established that the unwanted conduct amounting to harassment which is suffered by an employee who is not himself disabled is related to the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such conduct is contrary to the prohibition of harassment laid down by Article 2(3).