This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CN0668
Case C-668/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic
Case C-668/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic
Case C-668/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic
OJ C 68, 22.2.2016, p. 23–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.2.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 68/23 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic
(Case C-668/15)
(2016/C 068/31)
Language of the case: Danish
Referring court
Vestre Landsret
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Jyske Finans A/S
Defendant: Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic
Questions referred
|
1. |
Must the prohibition on direct discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin in Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC (1) of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin be interpreted as precluding a practice such as the one in the present case, by which persons in an equivalent situation who are born outside the Nordic countries, a Member State, Switzerland and Liechtenstein are treated less favourably than persons born in the Nordic countries, a Member State, Switzerland and Liechtenstein? |
|
2. |
If the first question is answered in the negative: does such a practice thus give rise to indirect discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC — unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary? |
|
3. |
If the second question is answered in the affirmative, can such a practice in principle be justified as an appropriate and necessary means for safeguarding the enhanced customer due diligence measures provided for in Article 13 of Directive 2005/60/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing? |