This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CN0104
Case C-104/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 24 February 2010 — Patrick Kelly v National University of Ireland
Case C-104/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 24 February 2010 — Patrick Kelly v National University of Ireland
Case C-104/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 24 February 2010 — Patrick Kelly v National University of Ireland
OJ C 134, 22.5.2010, p. 19–19
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.5.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 134/19 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 24 February 2010 — Patrick Kelly v National University of Ireland
(Case C-104/10)
2010/C 134/29
Language of the case: English
Referring court
High Court of Ireland
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Patrick Kelly
Defendant: National University of Ireland
Questions referred
|
1. |
Does Article 4(1) of Council Directive 97/80/EC (1) entitle an applicant for vocational training, who believes that he or she has been denied access to vocational training because the principle of equal treatment was not applied to him or her, to information on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training so that the applicant can ‘establish, before a court or other competent authority, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination’? |
|
2. |
Does Article 4 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (2) entitle an applicant for vocational training who believes that he or she has been denied access to vocational training ‘on the basis of the same criteria’ and discriminated against ‘on grounds of sex’ in terms of accessing vocational training to information held by the course provider on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training? |
|
3. |
Does Article 3 of Council Directive 2002/73/EC (3) prohibiting ‘direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex’ in relation to ‘access’ to vocational training entitle an applicant for vocational training who claims to have been discriminated against ‘on the grounds of sex’ in terms of accessing vocational training to information held by the course provider on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training? |
|
4. |
Does the nature of the obligation under Article 267, para. 3 TFEU differ in a Member State with an adversarial (as opposed to inquisitorial) legal system and, if so, in what respect? |
|
5. |
Can any entitlement to information under the aforesaid Directives be affected by the operation of national or European laws relating to confidentiality? |
(1) Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex
OJ L 14, p. 6
(2) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions
OJ L 39, p. 40
(3) Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (Text with EEA relevance)
OJ L 269, p. 15