Most feminist literature is divided on how to approach prostitution (some writers see it as sex work that should be normalized, some as inherently violent and exploitative practice that should be abolished). Connected to these positions, many normative debates about the response to prostitution concentrate on a legislative overhaul of current systems and either propose legalization (the ‘Dutch model’) or the criminalization of demand (the ‘Swedish model’). Based on the finding that many national responses to prostitution fall in between the two models and the recognition that not all jurisdictions might chose a legislative overhaul in either the Dutch or the Swedish direction, this article tries to construct a framework for gender equality analysis that could be used to improve the position of prostitutes in (existing or proposed) regulatory regimes in which the well-being of prostitutes has not been an important legislative aim. The article submits that the treatment of clients and prostitutes needs to be compared, as they are parties to the same transaction, and that any regime in which the treatment is asymmetric to the detriment of the prostitute is indirectly discriminatory (has a disparate impact) on the basis of sex. It presents three aspects of prostitution relevant for a gender equality analysis: 1) the social meaning of prostitution, 2) the risk of harm to the prostitute, and 3) the de facto inequalities between the client and the prostitute. It argues that these need to be weighed against any justification for asymmetric treatment benefiting the client and that they are also in their own right justifications for symmetric treatment of client and prostitute and even for an asymmetric treatment benefiting the prostitute. In order to put this argument into context, the article presents a typology of regulatory regimes (based on EU member states and common law jurisdictions) and offers a synthesis of the feminist positions on prostitution (sex-work and sexual-domination).

DOI: doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2009.11.009

This article looks at the legal notion of gender equality in the Czech Republic as EU harmonization obligations meet with the socialist past. While the transition from state socialism to capitalism brought positive legal reforms – many incurred in the EU accession process – some of these new mechanisms, especially anti-discrimination and gender equality provisions, are mistrusted and misunderstood by legal actors. The article submits that the current notion of equality is influenced by the socialist past, and that both a continuity of conceptions between past and present about gender and equality, and attempts to distance the new capitalist order from its socialist predecessor impact it.

The delivery of substantive sex equality guarantees in the European Union and the United States is substantially affected by the division of powers (“competences” in European terminology) between the constituent units and the center. This Commentary compares the technical similarities and differences between the structures of competence of the federal systems of the United States and the European Union. This Commentary also briefly sketches their impact on substantive sex equality law.

Der vorliegende Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit zwei Fragen im Hinblick auf die Prüfung, ob eine Ungleichbehandlung aufgrund des Geschlechts eine Diskriminierung darstellt. Erstens, welche Rolle spielt in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH das Prinzip der Verhältnismäßigkeit und zweitens, welche Rolle sollte es spielen? Nach einer Darstellung des Prinzips der Verhältnismäßigkeit und des EG-Gleichheitsrechts wird die Anwendung der Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzips durch den EuGH anhand von ungefähr 70 repräsentativen Urteilen aus dem Bereich der Geschlechtergleichheit analysiert. Diese Forschung muss sich aus Platzgründen in zweierlei Hinsicht beschränken: Überprüft wird nur der Bereich der Gleichbehandlung in Arbeits- und Beschäftigungsfragen einschließlich des gleichen Entgelts. Zudem wird auf die Darstellung der Schlussanträge der Generalanwälte verzichtet. Zunächst wird die Rechtsprechung zu den geschriebenen Ausnahmen vom Grundsatz der Gleichbehandlung und danach die Rechtsprechung zu den ungeschriebenen Rechtfertigungsgründen durch ein legitimes Ziel geprüft. Im Rahmen dieser Analyse wird insbesondere auf die dogmatische Struktur und Prüfungsdichte geachtet sowie geklärt, ob die Prüfungskompetenz beim EuGH oder dem nationalen Gericht liegt. Die Untersuchung wird sich nicht darauf beschränken, was der Gerichtshof „sagt“, sondern wird ermitteln, was er „macht“. Dabei wird analysiert, ob Muster hinsichtlich der Rechtsgrundlage der „Entlastung“ der Ungleichbehandlung, der Art der Rechtfertigung, des Gesetzesübertreters oder des Verfahrens vor dem EuGH bestehen.

Considers the implementation of EC equality law, including Council Directive 2000/43, in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Discusses: (1) the Slovak Constitutional Court decision in Government of Slovakia v Parliament of Slovakia on whether s.8(8) of Act 365/2004 on Anti-Discrimination, which purported to transpose Council Directive 2000/43 Art.5 on positive action, conformed to the Constitution of Slovakia; and (2) the Czech Constitutional Court decision on whether the Civil Code of Procedure s.133a(2), which purported to transpose Council Directive 2000/43 Art.8 on the burden of proof, was consistent with the Constitution of the Czech Republic. Comments on the distinguishing features and different outcomes in each case.

This article analyses the transposition of EC equality law and the application of equality norms by the courts in the Czech Republic. It identifies several challenges to effective implementation of equality policy. It submits, first, that the Czech legislature’s actual goal is not the achievement of equality but the fulfilment of EU membership obligations. It argues that this attitude has resulted in the failure to adopt a comprehensive anti-discrimination law and also has a negative impact on the quality of the legislation and its effectiveness. Second, it identifies serious deficiencies in the courts’ judgments and considers these to result from Czech judges’ adherence to legal formalism. As a consequence, the courts mechanically apply the wording of the legal norms while completely disregarding the legislative aims and the realities of gender discrimination.