Goods and services (Directive 2004/113)

• Author: Genoveva Tisheva
• Pages: 65-68

65

9 Goods and services (Directive 2004/113)73

9.1 General (legal) context

9.1.1 Surveys and reports about the difficulties linked to equal access to and supply of

goods and services

There are no such relevant surveys or documents.

9.1.2 Specific problems of discrimination in the online environment / digital

market / collaborative economy

There are no specific problems of discrimination based on sex identified in this cont ext.

9.1.3 Political and societal debate

There is no substantial political and societal debate on the issue.

9.2 Prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination

Article 37 of the LPFD prohibits any refusal to supply goods or services and to supply lower

quality goods or services, or their supply under less favourable conditions, based on the

discrimination grounds defined in the law.

9.3 Material scope

The material scope of t he national law has broader material scope than that specified in

Article 3 of the Directive. N o sphere is explicitly excluded so the law also applies to the

content of the media and advertising, and to education. Article 35 LPFD requires the

application of m ethods aimed at the elimination of gender stereotyping in education and

training. Educational institutions are obliged to include gender equality education.

The case law of the Commission for Protection from Discrimination has explicitly confirmed

the application of the equal treatment principle also in the field of the media and

advertising.

Nevertheless, some extreme cases of sexist advertisements brought b efore this equality

body were not properly dealt with by the institution. The outcomes were as follows: either

the equality body deferred the case t o other institutions (e.g. the Council for Electronic

Media), or it suggested that the cases are rather for the self-regulatory body on advertising

(established by businesses in 2010). Thus the institution dealing with discrimination

refused to examine the cases through a discrimination lens. The only case where the

equality body issued a decision was the case against Peshtera anisette where the outcome

was negative for the women complainants.74 The arguments that it is rather a moral issue

and that no discrimination was proved wa s upheld until the court of last instance – the

Panel of five judges of the Supreme Administrative Court.75

As a matter of fact, in September 2008, 1 3 women brought a complaint of sex

discrimination against a series of advertisements for the Peshtera anise aperitif, together

with the producerз the joint stock company Vinprom Peshtera. They were entitled ‘Passion

in Crystals’ and ‘The Season of Watermelons’ and were notorious for their television, print

media and billboard versions. The advertisements displayed the ‘chalga’ гa Bulgarian music

73 See e.g. Caracciolo di Torella, E. and McLellan, B., Gender equality and the collaborative economy (2018)

European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, available at:

https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/4573-gender-equality-and-the-collaborative-economy-pdf-721-kb.

74 Judgment No. 201 from 15 September 2010 on case file 217/2008.

75 Judgment 3616 from 13 March 2012 on case file 12183/2011.