NRW Higher Administrative Court, 21/09/2017, Ref.: 6 A 916/16
According to Article 33 (1) and (2) of the Basic Law, every German has the same civic rights and duties in every federal state. In addition, every German has equal access to every public office according to his or her suitability, ability and professional performance. According to Section 9 BeamtStG, appointments are to be made on the basis of suitability, ability and professional performance regardless of gender, descent, race or ethnic origin, disability, religion or ideology, political views, origin, relationships or sexual identity.
In addition to personal criteria, suitability also includes physical criteria, such as height, if this is necessary for the respective qualification. However, it should be noted that only criteria that merely concretise a criterion already specified by law may be used as a basis. Any further consideration, for example of fundamental rights, may not take place without prior legislation.
Case Background
In 2013, the plaintiff applied for a position as a senior police officer with the North Rhine-Westphalia police force. Although he had passed all aptitude tests, his application was rejected because he did not fulfil the minimum height requirement of 168 cm for male applicants. The plaintiff argued that this minimum height violated the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) and the Basic Law (Art. 33 Para. 2 GG). He argued that with a height of 166.2 cm, he was no less capable than a woman with the required minimum height of 163 cm.
Positions of the Parties
The plaintiff saw the different treatment of men and women in terms of minimum height as discrimination. It was not comprehensible why male applicants under 168 cm should not be able to fulfil the tasks in the police service just as well as female applicants with a height of 163 cm. He also pointed out that he had achieved good results in all other aptitude tests.
The defendant state, on the other hand, defended the minimum body size with reference to the decree of the Ministry of the Interior, which has been in force since 2006. The determination of the minimum size was necessary for operational reasons and due to experience in training and further education. The aim was to ensure that all police officers were fully fit for duty.
Judgement of the Gelsenkirchen Administrative Court
The Gelsenkirchen Administrative Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. It found that the decision rejecting the plaintiff's application was unlawful. The determination of a different minimum body size for men and women violated the right to an error-free decision on the application under Article 33 (2) of the Basic Law. The court emphasised that although the stipulation of a general minimum height of 163 cm was justified, the higher requirement of 168 cm for men was not. This differentiation was discriminatory and required a legal basis, which was not given here.
Decision of the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia
The Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia also confirmed the decision of the Administrative Court. The appeal by the defendant state was dismissed. The court stated that setting a general minimum height of 163 cm for all applicants was permissible, as it was justified in the context of the police service's ability to perform its duties. This decision fell within the employer's scope of judgement. However, a specification that goes beyond this, such as 168 cm for men, is unlawful.
The state does not have a sufficient legal basis for this differentiation, as it was only determined by a decree and not by a parliamentary act or regulation. In addition, the different minimum size constitutes an inadmissible "equalisation of advantages" that favours women and disadvantages men without this being justified by the suitability requirements.
Proportionality and legality of the decision
The court emphasised that the general minimum height of 163 cm was proportionate and suitable to ensure the requirements of the police service. It was also necessary to ensure unrestricted fitness for duty. However, a further increase in height exclusively for men was not necessary and disproportionate. The determination by decree without a legal basis violates the principle of equality.
Conclusion
The judgement shows that differences in recruitment requirements, such as height, are only permissible if they have a legal basis and are proportionate. In this case, the unequal treatment of male and female applicants was unlawful as it was made without a sufficient legal basis and violated the principle of equality.
Source: Higher Administrative Court NRW
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de