Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (1984) Case 14/83 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.
| Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Submitted 6 December 1982 Decided 10 April 1984 | |
| Full case name | Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen |
| Case number | C-14/83 |
| ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:1984:153 |
| Court composition | |
| Judge-Rapporteur Lord Mackenzie Stuart | |
| Advocate General France Simone Rozès | |
| Instruments cited | |
| Equal Treatment Directive (Directive 76/207/EEC) | |
| Keywords | |
| Direct effect, Equal treatment | |
Facts
Sabine Von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann were German social workers who applied to work in men's prisons run by the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Both were rejected on the basis they were women.
Von Colson and Kamann appealed the decision at the Arbeitsgericht (Labour Tribunal). Under European Communities law, the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC) required member states to give effect to principle of equal treatment and obliged them to provide a legal remedy. The claimants argued that they had a directly effective right to demand that the court order the employer to appoint her. Instead of this or compensation, they were awarded only "reliance losses" as a remedy, equivalent to the travel costs incurred by going to the interview (7.20 DM).
Judgment
The ECJ held that Von Colson could not demand that the employer appoint her. The member states could fulfill their obligations to provide a remedy in several ways, including either specific performance or claiming damages. Either one would provide an effective remedy to comply with the obligation. This discretion prevented the obligation being directly effective.
23. Although... full implementation of the directive does not require any specific form of sanction for unlawful discrimination, it does entail that that sanction be such as to guarantee real and effective judicial protection.
26. ... national courts are required to interpret their national law in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive in order to achieve the result referred to in the third paragraph of Article 189.
28. ... if a Member State chooses to penalize breaches of that prohibition by the award of compensation, then in order to ensure that it is effective and that it has a deterrent effect, that compensation must in any event be adequate in relation to the damage sustained and must therefore amount to more than purely nominal compensation such as, for example, the reimbursement only of the expenses incurred in connection with the application. It is for the national court to interpret and apply the legislation adopted for the implementation of the directive in conformity with the requirements of Community law, in so far as it is given discretion to do so under national law.