Author: Kiril Moskovchuk
Published: August 15, 2016
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 5 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
Job applicants merely seeking compensation are not covered by the provisions of the Equal Treatment Directive 2000/78/EC, as the Court of Justice of the European Union recently ruled in Kratzer v R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG, in a reference from the German domestic court.
In this case the employer, R+V, advertised trainee positions for graduates. Mr Kratzer applied and his application was rejected. He sent a written complaint to R+V demanding €14,000 in compensation for age discrimination.
R+V invited him to an interview, stating that the rejection of his application had been automatically generated and was a mistake. Mr Kratzer declined to attend the interview, insisted on the compensation payment and suggested a discussion about his future employment once the compensation is settled. He brought a claim for age discrimination in the German court. On learning that all the trainee posts had gone to women, he claimed a further €3,500 for sex discrimination.
The Court of Justice of the European Union decided that Mr Kratzer obtained the status of a job applicant with a view to compensation, and not to recruitment and employment, his status does not fall within the definition of ‘access to employment, self-employment or to occupation’. Hence the EU discrimination laws will not afford protection to vexatious job applicants.