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
Asociaţia Accept v Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării (C-81/12)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
The fourth question
64

Asociaţia Accept v Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării (C-81/12)

Judgment of 25 Apr 2013law://eu/cjeu/2012/c-81-12/para_64@2026-11-10

64In any event, a purely symbolic sanction cannot be regarded as being compatible with the correct and effective implementation of Directive 2000/78.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Case: C-81/12 · ECLI:EU:C:2013:275
Decided: 25 Apr 2013
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania)
Applicant: Asociaţia Accept
Defendant: Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării
Rapporteur: A. Ó Caoimh
Advocate General: N. Jääskinen
Bench: 5 judges
M. Ilešič, V. Skouris, E. Jarašiūnas, A. Ó Caoimh, C.G. Fernlund
Language: Romanian
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62012CJ0081

Topics

Principles of Union law Social policy

History · 1 version

25 Apr 2013Reading

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 8: Ligebehandlingsnævnet acting on behalf of A v HK/Danmark and HK/Privat (C-587/20); Diskrimineringsombudsmannen v Braathens Regional Aviation AB (C-30/19)2 provisions; NH v Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI - Rete Lenford (C-507/18); Martin Leitner v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol (C-396/17); Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft Öffentlicher Dienst v Republik Österreich (C-24/17); "CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria" AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (C-83/14); Robert Michal Chmielewski v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága (C-255/14); Texdata Software GmbH (C-418/11)2 provisions
Cites 19: Criminal proceedings against Bodil Lindqvist (C-101/01); Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman (C-415/93); Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA (C-106/89); S. Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law (C-303/06); Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello (C-163/10); Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC (C-325/08); Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (C-14/83); M. Helen Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (C-271/91); Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV (C-54/07); Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-383/92); Gaetano Donà v Mario Mantero (C-13/76); Galina Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH (C-415/10); Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority (C-406/08); Vasiliki Nikoloudi v Organismos Tilepikoinonion Ellados AE (C-196/02); Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti Srl v Giuseppe Calafiori (C-451/03); Ntionik Anonymi Etaireia Emporias H/Y, Logismikou kai Paroxis Ypiresion Michanografisis and Ioannis Michail Pikoulas v Epitropi Kefalaiagoras (C-430/05); Nils Draehmpaehl v Urania Immobilienservice OHG (C-180/95); A.G.M.-COS.MET Srl v Suomen valtio and Tarmo Lehtinen (C-470/03)