¹ For a critique on the underlying directives see e.g. Tilman Repgen, Antidiskriminierung - die Totenglocke des Privatrechts läutet, in Vertragsfreiheit und Diskriminierung, 13 (Josef Isensee ed., 2007); Nuno Manuel Pinto Oliveria and Benedita MacCrorie, Anti-discrimination Rules in European Contract Law, in Constitutional Values and European Contract Law, 111 (Stefan Grundmann ed., 2008).Google Scholar

² BGBl. 2006 I, 1897–1910. Full name of the law: Gesetz zur Umsetzung europäischer Richtlinien zur Verwirklichung des Grundsatzes der Gleichbehandlung. Google Scholar

³ For critique on the AGG or its drafts see e.g. Eduard Picker, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz – Der Anfang vom Ende der Privatautonomie?, 57 Juristen Zeitung (JZ) 880 (2002) – engl. version: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=298; Thomas Pfeiffer, Diskriminierung oder Nichtdiskriminierung – was ist hier eigentlich die Frage, 1 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Schuldrecht (ZGS) 165 (2002); Karl-Heinz Ladeur, The German Proposal of an “Anti-Discrimination”-Law: Anticonstitutional and Anti-Common Sense. A Response to Nicola Vennemann, 3 German Law Journal (GLJ) (2002), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=152. For some more balanced, while still critical, remarks on an early draft of the German anti-discrimination legislation from an economic point of view, see Andreas Engert, Allied by Surprise? The Economic Case for an Anti-Discrimination Statute, 4 GLJ 685 (2003), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=290.Google Scholar

⁴ Since the DCFR was written by law professors it is also sometimes referred to as academic CFR.Google Scholar

⁵ Since the treaty of Lisbon (Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union And the Treaty Establishing the European Community of 3 December 2007, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00014.en07.pdf), which merges the EC with the other pillars of the EU, will enter into force on 1 December 2009 this paper will refer to “European Union (EU)” instead of the “European Community (EC)” if references are made to the organization in general. However, the differentiation between the EC as part of the EU and the EU as an whole is still maintained than references are made to masseurs already adopted or projects already carried out by the EC.Google Scholar

⁶ It should be noted that this analysis only deals with Germany and is not necessarily applicable to other EU Member States. In countries with a more developed non-discrimination tradition in their private law system, in the “old” EU-15 namely in the Netherlands and GB (see Überblick über die gesetzlichen Antidiskriminierungsbestimmungen der Mitgliedstaaten, (Commission ed., 2000) available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/arct/legalprovisions_de.pdf), the non-discrimination provisions of the DCFR might not give rise to any objections or even receive support.Google Scholar

⁷ For an overview of those initiatives, see Wolfgang Wurmnest, Common Core, Grundregeln, Kodifikationsentwürfe, Acquis-Grundsätze – Ansätze internationaler Wissenschaftlergruppen zur Privatrechtsvereinheitlichung in Europa, 11 Zeitschrift Für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 714 (2003).Google Scholar

⁸ See Council 8286/08 JUSTCIV 68 CONSOM 39, 11 April 2008, paras. 5–7.Google Scholar

⁹ See COM (2004) 651 final, 11 October 2004, 9.Google Scholar

The Idea of such a Common Frame of Reference was first introduced by the Commission in 2003 COM (2003) 68 final, 12 February 2003, paras. 59–68, after the 4^th option of COM (2001) 398 final, 11 July 2001 to introduce a European Code of Contract law was strongly criticized in the consultation process.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The Council, however, has rejected that option. See Council 8286/08 JUSTCIV 68 CONSOM 39, 11 April 2008, para. 7 (“The Committee rejected the idea of targeting the Common Frame of Reference also at lawmakers at Member State level, […]”). Notwithstanding, the factual usage of the DCFR/CFR by the national legislator is not subject of a decision of the Council. I.e., the political CFR will not be designed for usage by the national legislator.Google Scholar

¹¹ The Idea of an optional instrument was first introduced by the Commission in 2001. (See COM (2001) 398 final, 11 July 2001). It has been subject to a controversial legal debate. Instead of reviewing the entire debate, see only Hans Schulte-Nölke, EC Law on the Formation of Contract – from the Common Frame of Reference to the ‘Blue Button', 3 European Review of Contract Law (ERCL) 332, 348–349 (2007); Hugh Beale, The Future of the Common Frame of Reference, 3 ERCL 257, 269 (2007); Stefan Leible, Was tun mit dem Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen für das Europäische Vertragsrecht? – Plädoyer für ein optionales Instrument, 63 Betriebs-Berater (BB) 1469 (2008); Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi, An Optional Instrument for Consumer Contracts in the EU: Conflict of Laws and Conflict of Policies, in The Politics of the Draft Common Frame of Reference 3 (Alessandro Somma ed., 2009); Martijn W. Hesselink, Jacobien W. Rutgers and Tim de Booys, The legal basis for an optional instrument on European contract law, Centre for the Study of European Contract Law Working Paper Series No. 2007/04.Google Scholar

¹² At the moment, however, such projects are very unlikely, as even the European Parliament, which was always in favor of an ECC (see e.g. the resolutions of the European Parliament A2-157/89 of 26 Mai 1989, O.J. 1989 C 158/400-401 and A3-0329/94 of 06 Mai 1994, O.J. 1994 C 205/518) has become more reluctant towards such ideas. See Diana Wallis, European Contact Law – The Way Forward: Political Context, Parliament's Preoccupations and Process, 7 ERA-Forum – Scripta Iuris Europaei (ERA-Forum) 8 (2007).Google Scholar

¹³ By now, the main responsibility for the DCFR has shifted towards the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security (DG JLS). This is a shift away from consumer protection for which the DG Sanco is responsible.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Hans W. Michlitz, (Selbst-)Reflektion über die wissenschaftlichen Ansätze zur Vorbereitung einer europäischen Vertragsrechtskodifikation, 4 Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht (GPR) 2, 6 (2007).Google Scholar

¹⁵ For an overview of all the groups involved in the drafting process of the DCFR, see Stefan Leible, Was tun mit dem Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen für das Europäische Vertragsrecht? – Plädoyer für ein optionales Instrument, 63 BB 1469, 1471 (2008).Google Scholar

¹⁶ COM (2003) 68 final, 12 February 2003, para. 59.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Acquis communautaire means translated literally “that which has been acquired of the community”. This term is used in EU law to refer to the entire body of binding law of the European Union, which, of cause, includes the law of the EC.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) – Interim Outline Edition 3 (Christian von Bar, E. Clive & H. Schulte-Nölke eds., 2008).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Christian von Bar, Die Study Group on a European Civil Code, in Festschrift für Dieter Henrich zum 70. Geburtstag 1 (Peter Gottwald, Erik Jayme and Dieter Schwab eds., 2000).Google Scholar

²⁰ See note 18.Google Scholar

²¹ Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law - Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) - Outline Edition (Christian von Bar, Eric Clive and Hans Schulte-Nölke eds., 2009).Google Scholar

²² See http://www.sellier.de; Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law – Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) – Full Edition (6563 pages) (Study Group on a European Civil Code and Research Group on EC Private Law (Acquis Group) eds., 2009).Google Scholar

²³ See Wolfgang Ernst, Der ‘Common Frame of Reference’ aus juristischer Sicht, 208 Archiv für die civilistische Praxis (AcP) 248, 258 (2008).Google Scholar

²⁴ See Council 10551/08 (Presse 164), 4–5 June 2009, 27.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Council 8286/08 JUSTCIV 68 CONSOM 39, 11 April 2008, para. 10.Google Scholar

²⁶ See e.g. the proposed “horizontal instrument” in EU Consumer law COM (2008), 614 final., 8 October 2008. See for the differences between the DCFR and the proposal Martijn W. Hesselink, The Consumer Rights Directive and the CFR: two worlds apart? – Briefing note prepared for the EP expert hearing on 2 March 2009, Centre for the Study of European Contract Law Working Paper Series No. 2009/02, 7–13, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1346981; Reinhard Zimmermann, Textstufen in der modernen Entwicklung des europäischen Privatrechts, 20 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 319, 321 (2009). The same holds true for the Commission's initiative for a new antidiscrimination directive, which will be discussed below.Google Scholar

²⁷ This, however, has been suggested by several academics. See e.g. Martijn W. Hesselink, CFR & Social Justice – A Short study for the European Parliament on the values underlying the draft Common Frame of Reference for European private law: what roles for fairness and social justice? 9–11 (2008).Google Scholar

²⁸ This paper mainly refers to the term “freedom of contract” rather than to the more general term “private autonomy.” Although the term “private autonomy” was the term mainly used in the political and legal discussions both of the DCFR and the AGG, the term “freedom of contract” seems to describe the value at stake more specifically. The discussion in this paper mainly refers to the freedom of contract dimension in the sense of the freedom to decide whom to contract with (Abschlussfreiheit or negative Vertragsfreiheit). For a more thorough discussion of this issue see Anusheh Rafi, Gleichheit durch Kontrahierungszwang, 41 Recht und Politik (RuP) 218, 220 (2005).Google Scholar

²⁹ See Horst Eidenmüller, Florian Faust, Christoph Grigoleit, Nils Jansen, Gerhard Wagner, Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen für das Europäische Privatrecht, 63 JZ 529, 537 (2008).Google Scholar

³⁰ EC Directive 2000/43 of 29 June 2000, O.J. 2000 L 180/22 (Race and origin); EC Directive 2000/78 of 27 November 2000, O.J. 2000 L 303/16 (General framework for employment and occupation); EC Directive 2002/73 (Gender equality in employment and occupation) and EC Directive 2004/113 of 13 December 2004, O.J. 2005 L 373/37 (Gender equality in access to goods and services).Google Scholar

³¹ See Article 3 (1) (h) of EC Directive 2000/43 and Article 3 (1) of EC Directive 2004/113. The other two directives do not contain provisions referring to general private transactions. For more details, see Lisa Waddington and Mark Bell, More Equal than Others? Distinguishing European Union Equality Directives, 38 Common Market Law Review (CMLR) 587, 589 (2001).Google Scholar

³² Article 3 (1) (h) of EC Directive 2000/43 and Article 3 (1) of EC Directive 2004/113.Google Scholar

³³ Indirect discrimination is created by using ostensibly neutral criteria, which, however, lead to a factual disadvantage of the person concerned. See the definition in Article 2 (2) (b) of EC Directive 2000/43 and Article 2 (a) of EC Directive 2004/113.Google Scholar

³⁴ For more details see Article 8 (1) of EC Directive 2000/43 and Article 9 (1) of EC Directive 2004/113.Google Scholar

³⁵ Fore more details see Article 2 (2) (b) of EC Directive 2000/43 and Article 4 (5) of EC Directive 2004/113.Google Scholar

³⁶ Article 7 (1) of EC Directive 2000/43 and Article 8 (1) of EC Directive 2004/113.Google Scholar

³⁷ Interestingly, the criterion “belief” is not included in Article 19 of the AGG. However, the provisions about discrimination on the ground of gender inter alia do not comply with community law since their scope is not as wide as stipulated by the EC Directive 2004/113, Silke Bittner, § 19, in: AGG – Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz mit weiterführenden Vorschriften, Kommentar (Ursula Rust and Josef Falke eds., 1st ed., 2007) margin number 30.Google Scholar

³⁸ For a description of the law-making process in Germany see e.g. Repgen (Note 1), 18–19, with a detailed description in Fn. 19; Florian Stork, Comments on the Draft of the New German Private Law Anti-Discrimination Act: Implementing Directives 2000/43/EC and 2004/113/EC in German Private Law, 6 GLJ 535–536 (2005), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=574.Google Scholar

³⁹ See, for example, Sybille Raasch, Stellungnahme zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung europäischer Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinien, BT-Drs. 15/4538 vom 16.12.2004, available at: http://baer.rewi.hu-berlin.de/w/files/lsb_agg_chronologie_anhoerungen/stellungnahme_raasch.pdf; Nicola Vennemann, The German Draft Legislation On the Prevention of Discrimination in the Private Sector, 3 GLJ (2002), available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=137; Viktor Winkler, The Planned German Anti-Discrimination Act: Legal Vandalism? A Response to Karl-Heinz Ladeur, 3 GLJ (2002), available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=158.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ For an overview of the debate see REPGEN (Note 1), 16–17 with further references in note 16 and 17.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Anusheh Rafi draws attention to the fact that non-discrimination provisions can also be considered as enhancing freedom of contract if the term “freedom of contract” is interpreted not only as a formal but also as a substantive right. One could, for example, argue that non-discrimination provisions are improving the freedom of contract of potential victims of discrimination who would otherwise have been excluded from a contract, see Rafi (Note 28), 218.Google Scholar

⁴² Eduard Picker, Antidiskriminierung als Zivilrechtsprogramm?, 58 JZ 540, 541 (2003); republished in an English translation in, Eduard Picker, Anti-discrimination as a Program of Private Law?, 4 GLJ 771, 774 (2004), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=298; Franz Jürgen Säcker, Vertragsfreiheit und Schutz vor Diskriminierung, 14 ZEuP 1, 3 (2006); along the same lines also Ladeur (Note 3), para. 4, who argues, that private individuals may conclude or refuse to conclude contracts on the mere fact that they like or dislike the potential contractual partner, without being able to provide any reasons for it.Google Scholar

⁴³ For some fundamental objections, see Ladeur (Note 3); Thomas Pfeiffer, Stellungnahme zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung europäischer Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinien, A.-Drs. 15(12)440-H, vom 7. 3. 2005, available at http://baer.rewi.hu-berlin.de/w/files/lsb_agg_chronologie_anhoerungen/stellungnahme_pfeiffer.pdf und http://webarchiv.bundestag.de/archive/2005/0718/parlament/gremien15/a12/Oeffentliche_Sitzungen/20050307/pfeiffer.pdf, 12–15.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Säcker (Note 42), 3–4; Ladeur (Note 3) para. 4–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Anusheh Rafi draws attention to the fact that non-discrimination provisions can also be considered as enhancing freedom of contract if the term “freedom of contract” is interpreted not only as a formal but also as a substantive right. One could, for example, argue that non-discrimination provisions are improving the freedom of contract of potential victims of discrimination who would otherwise have been excluded from a contract, see Rafi (Note 28), 218.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The analysis provided in this article does, therefore, not necessarily allow for conclusions on the impact of these non-discrimination law frameworks on the “substantive” freedom of contract.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law - Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) - Outline Edition (Note 21), 14 (para. 17).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Id., 61 (Princ 1 DCFR).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Id., 60 (Princ 1 DCFR).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ An interesting parallel may be noted with regard to the principle of praktische Konkordanz (a unique German principle often translated as practical concordance or coordinated coexistence) in Germany's constitutional law. See further on this principle e.g. Ekkehart Stein & Götz Frank, Staatsrecht 268–269 (2007); Konrad Hesse, Grundzüge des Verfassungsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1999), margin number 72.Google Scholar

⁵¹ For an overview, see Victoria Anna Berger, Privatrechtlicher Diskriminierungsschutz als Grundsatz im Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen für Europäisches Vertragsrecht, 16 European Review of Private Law (ERPL) 843, 843–870 (2008).Google Scholar

⁵² Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) – Interim Outline Edition (Note 18), 14. See also Martijn W. Hesselink, Common Frame of Reference & Social Justice, 4 ERCL 248, 265 (2008), who argues that the limitation to these grounds is not consistent with Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This provision also bans discrimination on grounds of “social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation”. However, this public law provision cannot be transposed into private law since it is an accepted feature of market economies to discriminate, e.g., on the basis of individual property or social status. If those rights would be restricted, freedom of business, as also guaranteed by the Charter, would not be safeguarded.Google Scholar

⁵³ See Art. I. – 1:102 II DCFR.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See COM(2008) 426 final, 2 July 2008.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Art. II. – 2:102 DCFR.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Art. II. – 2:105 DCFR.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Art. II. – 2:103 DCFR.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Id. Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Moreover, justification grounds in the area of employment law, e.g. actors required to be a certain skin color, are also allowed in the directive on racial discrimination. See Art. 4 EC Directive 2000/43.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ E.g. Berger (Note 51), 868 regards this change as very positive.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Thomas Kadner Graziano, Europäisches Vertragsrecht – Übungen zur Rechtsvergleichung und Harmonisierung des Rechts 13 and 397 (2008).Google Scholar

⁶² England takes the same position as Germany on this matter. France is the only country in Europe that takes the same position as the DCFR. Most countries are somewhere in between. See Thomas Kadner Graziano, Die Europäisierung der juristischen Perspektive und der vergleichenden Methode - Fallstudien, 130 Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (ZvglRWiss), 248 (2007).Google Scholar

⁶³ Art. III. – 1:105 DCFR.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ For the purpose of clarity, the present paper refers to “sections” rather than using the common German term “Paragraph” (“§”).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The term refers to the doctrine in Roman law that laws on a specific matter prevail over a general rules. (Lex specialis derogat legi generali).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Olaf Deinert, Paragraph 21 Ansprüche, in Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, 2^nd edition, 666, 670 (Wolfgang Däubler and Martin Bertzbach eds., 2008); Gregor Thüsing and Konrad von Hoff, Private Versicherungen und das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, 48 Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 1, 9 (2007).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See BT-Drs. 15/5717, 14.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Klaus Adomeit and Jochen Mohr, Kommentar zum Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetz 639 (2007).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See e.g. Jobst-Hubertus Bauer, Burkhard Göpfert and Steffen Krieger, Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz. Kommentar 259 (2007).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Deinert (Note 66), 670; Bauer, Burkhard and Krieger (Note 69), 259; Thüsing and von Hoff (Note 66), 8; Dagmar Schiek, Paragraph 21 Ansprüche, in: Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz. Ein Kommentar aus europäischer Perspektive 347 (Dagmar Schiek ed., 2007).Google Scholar

⁷¹ See e.g. Franz Bydlinski, Zu den dogmatischen Grundfragen des Kontrahierungszwanges, 180 AcP 1 (1980); Wolfgang Kilian, Kontrahierungszwang und Zivilrecht, 180 AcP 53 (1980), who identified at least 33 different provisions possibly imposing Kontrahierungszwang in German private law.Google Scholar

⁷² See Winkler (Note 39), para. 11; Schiek (Note 70), 347.Google Scholar

⁷³ See Deinert (Note 66), 670; Silke Bittner, § 21, in: AGG – Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz mit weiterführenden Vorschriften, Kommentar (Ursula Rust and Josef Falke eds., 1st ed., 2007) margin number 9.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Deinert (Note 66), 671; Silke Bittner, § 21, in: AGG – Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz mit weiterführenden Vorschriften, Kommentar (Ursula Rust and Josef Falke eds., 1st ed., 2007) margin number 10.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Art. III. – 3:702 DCFR (General measure of damages):Google Scholar

“The general measure of damages for loss caused by non-performance of an obligation is such sum as will put the creditor as nearly as possible into the position in which the creditor would have been if the obligation had been duly performed. […]”Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See VI. – 6:101 I DCFR (Aim and forms of reparation):Google Scholar

“Reparation is to reinstate the person suffering the legally relevant damage in the position that person would have been in had the legally relevant damage not occurred.”Google Scholar

See Tobias Pinkel, Das Buch VI des Entwurfs eines Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens (DCFR): Nichtvertragliche Schuldverhältnisse aus Schädigung Dritter – Eine kritische Analyse des Modellgesetzes eines europäischen Deliktsrechts, ZERP-DP (Centre for European Law and Politics Working Paper Series) 6/2008, 20–21, available at http://www.zerp.eu.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See Art. III. – 3:701 (3) DCFR.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Book III, Chapter 3, Section 3 DCFR.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Art. III. – 3:701 (3) DCFR.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Ulrich Huber, Modellregeln für ein Europäisches Kaufrecht, 16 ZEuP 708, 714 (2008).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Art. III. – 3:302 (3) DCFR.Google Scholar

⁸² However, the differences regarding the grounds for discrimination might be evened out in a mid-term perspective, seeing that the Commission intends to extend the European protection against non-discrimination in private law matters to religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in the Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. See COM (2008) 426 final, 2 July 2008, 2.Google Scholar