Examples of using Differences in treatment in English and their translations into Greek
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Financial
-
Official/political
-
Computer
Differences in treatment shall only be justified by objective characteristics of the matter in question.
Furthermore, the scope of the proposal does not cover differences in treatment based on the nationality or legal status of foreigners in the territory of Member States.
The European Commission andEuropean Consumer Centres frequently receive consumer complaints involving unjustified differences in treatment on grounds of nationality or residence.
What differences in treatment between men and women has the Council identified in respect of gainful employment?
I therefore share the view of Mr Cadec: investigation and monitoring is required so thatthe development of EU policy in this area does not result in differences in treatment between producers from the Member States and those from third countries.
If, as you have said,directive 2000/78 allows differences in treatment, including on grounds of age, it is within the framework of positive actions, of actions proportionate to the desired objective.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with this excellent report by Mrs Lulling,the European Parliament is trying to reduce still further the differences in treatment between men and women in the workplace, and I welcome this move.
However, differences in treatment in connection with age may be justified under certain circumstances and therefore require specific provisions which may vary in accordance with the situation in Member States.
Finally, it is for each Member State, with due regard to Community law, which neither prohibits the defence of unjust enrichment nor makes it obligatory,to decide how to remedy differences in treatment that are found to be incompatible with the abovementioned principles.
It is therefore essential to distinguish between differences in treatment which are justified, in particular by legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and discrimination which must be prohibited.”.
(25) The prohibition of age discrimination is an essential part of meeting the aims set out in the Employment Guidelines andencouraging diversity in the workforce. However, differences in treatment in connection with age may be justified under certain circumstances and therefore require specific provisions which may vary in accordance with the situation in Member States.
I would stress our concern that differences in treatment between areas of activity be eliminated,in the face of well known developments at the levels of both organisation and of tools and mechanisms of work or production.
To tackle the under-representation of one of the major religious communities in the police service of Northern Ireland, differences in treatment regarding recruitment into that service, including its support staff, shall not constitute discrimination insofar as those differences in treatment are expressly authorised by national legislation.
It is therefore essential to distinguish between differences in treatment which are justified, in particular by legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and discrimination which must be prohibited.'.
The fact that family allowances constitute a component of the remuneration which the Communities are obliged to pay to their officials orother staff cannot, however, justify differences in treatment between contract staff where it is simply a question of paying them additional salary to compensate for a reduction in remuneration resulting from a move from a national law regime to a Community law regime.
The Court has established in its case-law that only differences in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic, or“status”, are capable of amounting to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14(see Carson v the United Kingdom[GC], no. 42184/05,§ 61, ECHR 2010).
The fact that family allowances constitute a component of the remuneration which the Communities are obligedto pay to their officials or other staff cannot, however, justify differences in treatment between contract staff where it is simply a question of paying them additional salary to compensate for a reduction in remuneration resulting from a move from a national law regime to a Community law regime.
President-in-Office of the Council.-(PT)As regards the differences in treatment between men and women in respect of gainful employment, basic legislation has already been approved, including certain directives which provide for equal treatment as regards pay, job access, professional training, promotion and working conditions.
(b) Whether the difference in treatment was reasonable.
The difference in treatment established by national legislation thus appears to be justified.
The difference in treatment suffered by the applicant is therefore not objectively and reasonably justified.
This difference in treatment is a two-fold problem.
This difference in treatment constitutes a restriction to the right of establishment(Article 49 TFEU).
However, not every difference in treatment will amount to a violation of Article 14.
Second, the Court held that this difference in treatment had been disproportionate and discriminatory.
The key question, therefore, was whether that difference in treatment was justified.
The difference in treatment and the comparability of the situations at issue.
Consequently, the difference in treatment complained of was based on an objective and reasonable justification.
This difference in treatment is unjustified.
No justification is furnished for that difference in treatment.