Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Gerhard Fuchs and Peter Köhler v Land Hessen (C-159/10, C-160/10)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
The first question
Whether there is a legitimate aim
44

Gerhard Fuchs and Peter Köhler v Land Hessen (C-159/10, C-160/10)

Judgment of 21 Jul 2011law://eu/cjeu/2010/c-159-10/para_44@2026-11-10

44As regards reliance on several aims at the same time, it may be seen from the case-law that the coexistence of a number of aims does not preclude the existence of a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Cases: C-159/10, C-160/10 · ECLI:EU:C:2011:508
Decided: 21 Jul 2011
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)
Applicants: Gerhard Fuchs; Peter Köhler
Defendant: Land Hessen
Rapporteur: P. Lindh
Advocate General: Y. Bot
Bench: 5 judges
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, A. Rosas, U. Lõhmus, A. Ó Caoimh, P. Lindh
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62010CJ0159

Topics

History · 1 version

21 Jul 2011Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
Cited by 22: European Commission v Republic of Poland (C-619/18)2 provisions; HB v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-349/23); FW and CE v Landespolizeidirektion Niederösterreich and Finanzamt Österreich (C-650/21); FK v Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien (C-58/21); Ministero della Giustizia v GN (C-914/19); M-GmbH v Finanzamt für Körperschaften (C-868/19); AB v Olympiako Athlitiko Kentro Athinon – Spyros Louis (C-511/19); RN v European Commission (T-442/17 R); BT v European Commission (T-315/19); VW v European Commission (T-243/18); Annemieke Bax v European Central Bank (T-433/18); CO v Comune di Gesturi (C-670/18)2 provisions; RK v Council of the European Union (T-11/17); FV v Council of the European Union (T-750/16); Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro (C-143/16); Werner Fries v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH (C-190/16); RN v European Commission (F-104/15); ÖBB Personenverkehr AG v Gotthard Starjakob (C-417/13); Leopold Schmitzer v Bundesministerin für Inneres (C-530/13); Maurice Leone and Blandine Leone v Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice and Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locales (C-173/13); Digibet Ltd and Gert Albers v Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG (C-156/13)2 provisions; HK Danmark acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen v Experian A/S (C-476/11)
Cites 11: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; Aziz Melki and Sélim Abdeli (C-188/10, C-189/10); Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung (C-169/07); Gisela Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges. mbH (C-45/09); Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato and Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato SpA (C-222/04); Domnica Petersen v Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe (C-341/08); Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA (C-411/05); Vasil Ivanov Georgiev v Tehnicheski universitet - Sofia, filial Plovdiv (C-250/09, C-268/09); The Queen, on the application of The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council for Ageing (Age Concern England) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (C-388/07)