GEO Correspondence

5/J10Eland House

Bressenden Place

London SW1E 5DU

GEO enquiries tel. 020 7944 0601

27 August 2008

Dr Kaihsu Tai

By email

Dear Dr Tai,

Your FOI request concerning the UK’s intervention in case C-54/07 Centrum voor Gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV.

I refer to your e-mail of 17th July requesting documents setting out: (1). the reasons for the UK Government’ssubmission of an observation to the court, and (2). how much money was spent on this intervention. I should clarify in case you are not aware, that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerns access to informationrather than access to documentswhich contain the relevant information.

As you may know our department received your request on the 1st August after it was transferred to us by officials in the Ministry of Justice. I can confirm that the Government Equalities Officeis the relevant public authority and holds some of the information requested.

1) Reasons for intervention in Case -54/07 Centrum voor Gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma FerynNV.

Before I elaborate on our reasons for intervening it may be helpful if I explain the background to this case. The key issues in the case were: whether statements made by an employer to the effect that he will not recruit employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin constitute direct discrimination contrary to the Race Directive, even where there is no actual identifiable person who has been treated less favourably; if so, what sanctions are required; and whether Member States are required to enable an equality body to bring regulatory enforcement proceedings in such cases even though the Directive does not expressly require this.

The UK takes its European law obligations very seriously. The purpose of the UK’s intervention was primarily to get clarityfrom the European Court of Justice on these issues,particularly in the context of our work towardsthe Equality Billfor Great Britainwhich we are currently engaged in. The issues potentially at stake in the case were significant, given that the Court was asked for the first time to examine the scope of the definition of direct discrimination and the remedies that Member Statesare required to make available under the Directive.Although we took the view that the facts in the case as reported were deplorable, and that had the same situation arisen in the UK, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (the “EHRC”) would have had the power to intervene using enforcement powers provided in the Race Relations Act, we believed a limited intervention was important in order to seek clarification of what was required under the Directive. In particular it was important to obtain clarity about the way the Directive applies to apparently discriminatory behaviour where no individual has come forward to claim that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them, and whether, as we contended, the approach taken in UK law was compliant with the Directive in this respect.

We are still working through the full implications of the judgement. However our initial view is that our current race legislation largely complies with the ECJ’s ruling. In Great Britain, the EHRC is empowered with various enforcement powers under the Race Relations Act 1976 and Equality Act 2006 in respect of discriminatory advertisements, discriminatory practices and in circumstances where it thinks a person is likely to commit an unlawful act.

We hope this gives you a better understanding of the reasons for the UK’s intervention in this case.

2) Monies spent on the intervention

The second part of your enquiry concerns the cost of our intervention. On this subject this department does not hold all the information you request.

However, we can estimate the costs of theUK’s intervention to be in the region of £10,000. This figure includes for example, the costs for the retention of Counsel and for travel and related costs for Counsel and two members of staff from the Department to attend the hearing in Luxembourgwith one over-night’s stay as the hearing took place early the following morning.

Relevant officials across Government were also involved in the intervention, to varying degrees. They included staff of this department, the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, the Department for Business and Regulatory Reform, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the devolved administrations. We have no figures for the cost of this time.

The Department, as an organisation, aims to be as helpful as possible in the way it deals with requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. If, however, you are not satisfied with the way in which your request has been handled or the outcome, information about the Department's review procedures and how to apply for an internal review are available at the following website: This also explains your right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision in the event that you remain dissatisfied following the authority's review.

Please contact me if you have any queries about this letter.

Yours sincerely

Mr A. Ahmed