Conference Agenda

Care, equality and the economy are intrinsically linked in the European Union, but the imperative of the market has always hold sway. The EU has adopted a sophisticated legal framework designed to enable workers to reconcile their paid work with caring responsibilities. The principle of gender equality has taken centre stage under this legal framework. However, in practice—and until recently—work-life balance policies primarily focused on enabling mothers to join and remain in the workforce, primarily to drive economic growth.

The 2019 Work-Life Balance Directive is presented as a departure from this approach. It claims to redefine care in two significant ways: (1) by expanding its scope beyond the narrow confines of childcare and (2) by challenging traditional gender norms. This paper critically examines these claims, asserting that the EU continues to reinforce women’s caregiving roles, perpetuating their placement in precarious and low-paying jobs. Furthermore, it argues that the framework neglects to recognize care as a multifaceted relationship, involving not only gender dynamics but also love—a form of value beyond traditional economic measures. Consequently, the trajectory of care within the EU remains heavily shaped by economic imperatives.

While some age-based distinctions are not, or at least not fundamentally, disputed because of their inherent social function (e.g. age restrictions regarding smoking or driving) other forms of age discrimination like those within the employment field or set up by actuarial practices mobilities the concept of fairness as they impact on equality standards. While laws are currently in place to address age discrimination within the employment field, for example Directive 2000/78, in the insurance industry these practices are widely tolerated and encouraged by actuarial theories which see in age a factor of risk that affects profits and harms competition. Previous authors established that age discrimination in insurance exists and challenged these justified practices which discriminate among consumers. In 2008, a Proposal for a Council Directive has been launched to further implement the principle of equal treatment. More precisely, the aim was to set out a framework for the prohibition of age discrimination outside the labour market by establishing a uniform minimum level of protection within the European Union. As this Proposal never developed, this legislative gap is today threatening the concepts of fairness and equality. In relationship to that, this study argues that the rise of blockchain technology, specifically smart contracts, will reinforce age discrimination by automatising not inclusive practises. On the long term, the consequences will be renewed age stereotype practices able to lower social equality and economically excluding part of the population from the social life by denying to specific age groups access to financial services. Eventually, this study reflects on the need for a stronger position from the European Union able to contrasts fragmented interpretations of equality and protecting against the unfair ageism embedded in the discriminatory evolution of automatised decisions in the insurance industry.

The empirical relevance of socioeconomic inequalities has been well established in numerous studies: Access to childcare placements is heavily influenced by parental socioeconomic status, educational opportunities are unequally distributed, and individuals from lower social backgrounds are disproportionately affected by illnesses and health conditions. In the context of access to justice, economic hardship can significantly impact litigants’ ability to pursue civil claims.

EU and European human rights law acknowledge this issue and address relevant aspects in various constitutional and international legal provisions. Article 14 ECHR, Articles 2(1) and 26 ICCPR, Article 2(1) UN CRC, and Article 2(2) ICESCR prohibit discrimination on the grounds of social origin and other status. However, the question remains: To what extent does European law serve as an effective tool in combating socioeconomic inequalities?

This question is particularly relevant given that, unlike in the case of racial discrimination—where post-WWII legal frameworks were explicitly designed to be non-racist—bourgeois-capitalist legal systems are inherently structured around class relations. Social inequality is not only widely accepted in capitalist societies but is often reinforced by narratives of social mobility and individual agency.

Assessing the effectiveness of European law in this regard requires not only a legal analysis but also an intersectional perspective that considers class, race, and gender. Notably, the European Court of Human Rights has never explicitly recognized class-based discrimination under Article 14 ECHR. However, certain landmark rulings—particularly those addressing racial discrimination—also reflect strong class-related aspects. One example is D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic (ECtHR, judgment of 13 November 2007, Application no. 57325/00), which will be analyzed in this context.

This contribution argues that while European law acknowledges socioeconomic inequalities, it lacks effective mechanisms to structurally address them. The discussion will examine relevant case law and suggest improvements, including insights from national legal frameworks in Bulgaria, Estonia, and Latvia, as well as the relatively recent Anti-Discrimination Law of Berlin.