Acknowledgements -- Chapter 1. General Introduction: The Need for a General Decision Model -- 1 Judicial Assessment of Unequal Treatment -- 2 Problems Regarding the Judicial Assessment of the Principle of Equality -- 3 The Need for Well-reasoned Decisions on Unequal Treatment -- 4 The Desirability of Developing a Decision Model -- Chapter 2. A Theoretical Model for Judicial Decision-making on the Principle of Equality -- 1 Definition of Concepts -- 1.1 Equality, Comparability, Differentiation and Discrimination -- 1.1.1 The Aristotelian Equality Formula -- 1.1.2 Distinction, Unequal Treatment, Differentiation, Classification and Discrimination -- 1.2 Formal and Substantive Inequality -- Direct and Indirect Inequality -- 1.2.1 Formal and Substantive Inequality -- 1.2.2 Direct and Indirect Inequality-Relationship of these Concepts to Formal and Substantive Inequality -- 1.2.3 Other Concepts -- 2 Scope of Application of the Decision Model -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Open and Closed Models -- 2.3 Situations where a Complaint can be Made about Unequal Treatment -- 2.3.1 Situations of Unequal Treatment -- 2.3.2 Consequences for the Assessment Methods -- 2.4 Manifestations of Unequal Treatment: Formal or Substantive, Direct or Indirect, Intentional or Unintentional -- 2.5 Ground of Distinction -- 2.6 Applicability in Horizontal Relationships -- 3 Contents of the Assessment Model -- 3.1 General Remarks -- 3.1.1 Introduction -- 3.1.2 Phases of the Assessment -- 3.1.3 Design of the Justification or Assessment Model -- 3.1.4 Preferential Treatment -- 3.2 The Requirement of a Legitimate Aim -- 3.2.1 Introduction: The Need to Assess the Legitimacy of the Aims Pursued -- 3.2.2 Uncovering the Aim of a Difference in Treatment -- 3.2.3 The Simultaneous Search for Different Goals (Plurality of Objectives).

3.2.4 Substantive Assessment of the Justifiability of the Aims Pursued -- 3.3 Assessment of the Relationship Between Goal and Means -- 3.3.1 Introduction -- 3.3.2 Over- and Underinclusiveness, or the Assessment of the Degree of Fit -- 3.3.3 Suitability -- 3.3.4 Subsidiarity -- 3.3.5 Proportionality in the Strict Sense (Narrow Proportionality) -- 4 The Test of Comparability and the First Phase of Assessment -- 4.1 Content of the Comparability Test -- 4.2 Determining Comparability -- 4.2.1 Introduction -- 4.2.2 The Need to Establish a Standard of Comparison -- 4.2.3 Substantive Assessment of the Standard of Comparison -- 4.2.4 The Justification Model and the Comparability Test: Over- and Underinclusiveness -- 4.3 The Second Phase of the Assessment: Desirability of the Choice of the Justification Model -- 4.3.1 Introduction -- 4.3.2 The Desirability of the Choice of the Justification Model -- 4.3.3 Conclusion: No Comparability Test -- 4.4 The Evidential Function of the Comparability Test -- Alternative Tests -- 4.4.1 Assessment in the First Phase -- Apportionment of the Burden of Proof -- 4.4.2 First Alternative: Test of Intent or Motive -- 4.4.3 Second Alternative: the 'but for' Criterion -- 4.4.4 Third Alternative: Test of Disadvantage -- 4.4.5 Conclusion -- 5 The Intensity of the Assessment -- 5.1 Introduction: The Need for Differentiation in the Intensity of the Assessment -- 5.2 'Levels' of Intensity and their Significance for the Assessment -- 5.2.1 Gradations or 'Levels' of Intensity of the Assessment -- 5.2.2 Consequences of the Choice of a Particular Level of Intensity -- 5.3 Factors Determining the Level of Intensity -- 5.3.1 Introduction -- 5.3.2 Factors Determining the Level of Intensity -- 5.3.3 Balancing the Different Factors and Deciding on the Level of Intensity -- 6 Summary of the Theoretical Assessment Model.

Chapter 3. Assessment Against Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights -- 1 General -- 1.1 The Accessory Nature of the Prohibition of Discrimination -- 1.1.1 The Way in which the Court has given Substance to the Accessory Character -- 1.1.2 Disadvantages of the Accessory Character -- 1.1.3 The Consequences of the Accessory Character for the Assessment Methods -- 1.1.4 Significance of the Twelfth Protocol -- 1.2 Content and Scope of the Prohibition of Discrimination -- 1.2.1 Grounds for Distinction -- Requirement of Unequal Treatment on the Basis of a Personal Characteristic -- 1.2.2 Dealing with the Substance of Claims under Article 14 -- 1.3 Direct and Indirect Unequal Treatment -- Formal and Substantive Equality -- 1.3.1 Direct and Indirect Unequal Treatment -- 1.3.2 Formal and Substantive Equality -- 1.4 Only Assessment of Claims Directed against the Government -- 1.5 Case-based Assessment by the Court -- 2 The Assessment Model -- 2.1 Development and Content of the Assessment Model -- 2.2 Comparability as a First-phase Test -- 2.2.1 Assessment Standards when Judging Comparability -- 2.2.2 Omission of the Comparability Test in Specific Cases -- 2.2.3 The Test of Disadvantage as an Alternative for the Comparability Test -- 2.3 Assessment of the Presence of a Legitimate Aim -- 2.3.1 Determining the Aim of the Distinction -- 2.3.2 Justification of the Aims Pursued -- 2.4 Assessment of the Relationship between Goal and Means: Proportionality in the Broad Sense -- 2.4.1 Content and Application of the Goal-means Test and Article 14 -- 2.4.2 Application of the Goal-means Test with Respect to Substantive Provisions of the Convention -- 2.5 Suitability -- 2.5.1 The Suitability Test with Respect to Substantive Convention Provisions -- 2.5.2 The Suitability Test with Respect to Article 14.

2.6 Subsidiarity and Necessity -- 2.6.1 Subsidiarity and Necessity with Respect to Substantive Convention Provisions -- 2.6.2 Subsidiarity and Necessity when Assessing against Article 14 -- 2.7 Proportionality in the Strict Sense -- 2.8 A Missing Criterion: Assessment of Over- and Underinclusiveness -- 2.9 Conclusion -- 3 Intensity of the Assessment and the Margin of Appreciation -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.1.1 Content of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine -- 3.1.2 Basis for Accepting the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine -- 3.1.3 Significance of the Margin of Appreciation for the Intensity of the Assessment -- 3.2 Factors Determining the Scope of the Margin of Appreciation -- 3.2.1 Introduction -- 3.2.2 The "Common Ground" Factor: the Existence of a European Consensus -- 3.2.3 The "Better Placed" Argument -- 3.2.4 The Character and the Weight of the Aims Pursued -- 3.2.5 Context of the Measure in Question -- 3.2.6 The Importance of the Affected Right: Fundamental Interests and Core Rights -- 3.2.7 Nature of the Interference -- 3.2.8 Balancing the Intensity-determining Factors -- 3.3 Intensity of the Assessment and Article 14: The "ery Weighty Reasons" Doctrine -- 3.3.1 Translating the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine into a Very Weighty Reasons Doctrine -- 3.3.2 Criterion for the Applicability of the Very Weighty Reasons Doctrine: Ground of Distinction -- 3.3.3 Conclusion -- 4 Conclusions -- 4.1 Conclusions Relating to the Assessment Methods -- 4.1.1 Introduction -- 4.1.2 Assessment in the First Phase: the Comparability Test -- 4.1.3 The Second Phase of the Assessment: Application of the Justification Model -- 4.2 Conclusions Relating to the Intensity of the Assessment -- 4.2.1 Method of the Court, Levels of Intensity and Influence on the Assessment Methods -- 4.2.2 Factors that Determine the Intensity of the Assessment.

Chapter 4. Assessment by the European Court of Justice against the Principle of Equality -- 1 General -- 1.1 Content and Background of the Principle of Equality in Community Law -- 1.1.1 The EC Treaty and the Principle of Equality -- 1.1.2 Background and Meaning of the Principle of Equality in European Law -- 1.2 Direct and Indirect Distinctions -- Formal and Substantive Inequality -- 1.2.1 Direct and Indirect Distinctions -- 1.2.2 Formal and Substantive Inequality -- 1.3 Horizontal and Vertical Relations -- 1.4 Nature of the Procedure in which the Equality Principle Plays a Role -- 1.5 Structure of this Chapter -- 2 The Assessment Models -- 2.1 General Description of the Assessment Models -- 2.1.1 The Assessment Model with Distinctions Based on Gender -- 2.1.2 The Assessment Model for Distinctions in the Field of the Common Agricultural Policy -- 2.1.3 The Assessment Model in the Case of Distinctions Based on Nationality -- 2.2 The First Phase of Assessment: Comparability and Disadvantage -- 2.2.1 Comparability and Disadvantage with Unequal Treatment Based on Gender -- 2.2.2 Comparability and Disadvantage in the Field of Agriculture -- 2.2.3 Comparability and Disadvantage with Unequal Treatment Based on Nationality -- 2.2.4 Applications of the Comparability Test with Article 90 EC -- 2.3 Assessment of the Goal -- 2.3.1 Assessment of the Goal with Unequal Treatment Based on Gender -- 2.3.2 Assessment of the Goal with Unequal Treatment in the Field of Agriculture -- 2.3.3 Assessment of the Goal with Unequal Treatment Based on Nationality -- 2.3.4 Assessment of the Goal with Article 90 EC -- 2.3.5 Conclusions -- 2.4 Assessment of Suitability, Subsidiarity and Proportionality -- 2.4.1 Assessment of Suitability, Subsidiarity and Proportionality with Unequal Treatment Based on Gender.

2.4.2 Assessment of Suitability, Necessity and Proportionality with Unequal Treatment in the Field of Agriculture.