§ Mrs. FyfeTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the nature of the advice given on behalf of the United Kingdom Government by Lindsey Nichol] of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, Eleanor Sharpston Barrister and Michael Beloff QC, to the Court of Justice of the European Communities when it was considering the Marschell v Land Nordrhein Westfalen case. [34886]
§ Mr. Alan HowarthAt the hearing of the European Court of Justice on 11 March 1997 in the case Helmut Marschell v Land Nordrhein Westfalen, Michael Beloff QC, representing the United Kingdom Government, made oral submissions to the Court.
These submissions drew attention to the fact that the ECJ had already had occasion, in the case of Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen, to examine the proper interpretation of Article 2(4) of the Equal Treatment Directive, and that in that case the ECJ had laid down four very important guidelines which, it was submitted, should be determinative of the result of the Marschall case.
Those guidelines were:
First, the ECJ upheld the importance of the principle of non discrimination.Secondly, it confirmed that national laws like the law at issue in Kalanke involve direct discrimination on the grounds of sex.Thirdly, it characterised Article 2(4) of the Equal Treatment Directive as a derogation from the core principle of equal treatment, and hence as a provision to be interpreted narrowly.Fourthly, it identified equality of opportunity, and not equality of result, as the means chosen by the Directive of achieving equal representation.