Find Ancestors

I agree in principle that the court may be right to come to the ruling as 'a point of law'....but if stats prove that women drivers are less risk?

It was clear, Jonesey, that you referred to the European Court. I don't share your opinion of the Court, or European institutions in general; I think the opinion that a body like the European Cout is "total idiots" is rather silly.

Do read the press release (I'm still trying to find out how to get the link to the decision to work), Ginny, it's rather technical.

As I am understanding it, the prohibition on the use of gender as a factor in the calculation of insurance premiums and benefits was decided some time ago, and doesn't apply just to car insurance.

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-236/09

(18) The use of actuarial factors related to sex is widespread in the provision of insurance and other related financial services. In order to ensure equal treatment between men and women, the use of sex as an actuarial factor should not result in differences in individuals’ premiums and benefits. To avoid a sudden readjustment of the market, the implementation of this rule should apply only to new contracts concluded after the date of transposition of this Directive.

(19) Certain categories of risks may vary between the sexes. In some cases, sex is one but not necessarily the only determining factor in the assessment of risks insured. For contracts insuring those types of risks, Member States may decide to permit exemptions from the rule of unisex premiums and benefits, as long as they can ensure that underlying actuarial and statistical data on which the calculations are based, are reliable, regularly up-dated and available to the public. Exemptions are allowed only where national legislation has not already applied the unisex rule. Five years after transposition of this Directive, Member States should re-examine the justification for these exemptions, taking into account the most recent actuarial and statistical data and a report by the Commission three years after the date of transposition of this Directive.’


... The Court has consistently held that the principle of equal treatment requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently, and different situations must not be treated in the same way, unless such treatment is objectively justified ...

In that regard, it should be pointed out that the comparability of situations must be assessed in the light of the subject-matter and purpose of the EU measure which makes the distinction in question ...

... Recital 18 to Directive 2004/113 expressly states that, in order to guarantee equal treatment between men and women, the use of sex as an actuarial factor must not result in differences in premiums and benefits for insured individuals. Recital 19 to that directive describes the option granted to Member States not to apply the rule of unisex premiums and benefits as an option to permit ‘exemptions’. Accordingly, Directive 2004/113 is based on the premiss that, for the purposes of applying the principle of equal treatment for men and women, enshrined in Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter, the respective situations of men and women with regard to insurance premiums and benefits contracted by them are comparable. ...



I'm afraid it might take me a bit to get my head around it all. ;)

I never wanted to be in the EU in the first place..Load of B****ks they are telling us what we can and cant do...
Been and voted on the Referendum in Wales...HID voted one way,I voted the other..But then he supports a party that I dont..We agree to differ as it makes for a quieter life and I dont really understand Politicking that much...Only the bits I want to understand are easy..;)

A friend was here earlier(woman)and she said that we have been fighting for equal rights for a long time,and now we get one we dont want it???

Her HID was on the side of cheaper insurance for women as he agreed we were safer drivers.....


Jax
I have had my Gall Bladder out,my womb(but not my ovaries)and my appendix,not much more to go till they empty me all out...

The opinions of people's HIDs about how safe women drivers are ... not something I care to base public policy on.

I wonder whether Christians have more house fires than Zoroastrians? Hindus have more babies than Buddhists? Black people trip and fall more than white people? I'm sure many people have opinions about such things ...

I wonder whether we know any men who are safe drivers, and how fair they think it is that they should pay higher premiums than women with the same driving record.

JC, You are of course entitled to your opinion.

Perhaps you might have a different one were you a resident of the UK and more or less every aspect of your private and business life these days was dictated by dictats from an unelected court in a foreign land.

Yep I have to agree Jonesey....living in Europe as opposed to England can be a pain in the butt

On insurance in particular:

I believe that the companies who offer insurance cover use many criteria when assessing the risk that they are taking when offering that cover.

Amongst those criteria being the type of vehicle, the size of its engine, the location where it is kept overnight, the purpose for which it is used, the value of the vehicle, the cost of repairs to that vehicle if damaged. the driving history of its driver regardless of the drivers sex.

Is it not right that they should also be allowed to take into consideration the relative historical accident rate statistics for the group of people that the driver is associated to by their age and sex? If those statistics prove that any particular group represents a lesser or greater risk is it not correct that the premium asked should be relative to the risk being incurred.

I would ask what right do a bunch of unelected people based in the middle of Europe have to dictate to and impose their will on British insurers?

Perhaps the French have the cleverer idea. They allow the European court to take whatever decisions they wish and then ignore them if the French disagree with the decision.

That's what I was b#oody saying all along !

Oh and the 'main' criteria being....claims for loss of life or injuries

I thought we were meant to talk rubbish on this thread?

Not all this politicks and stuff

Cant tell insurance I cant drive anymore it will cost to much for HID to insure my car

ja...x

Jonesey:

"Perhaps you might have a different one were you a resident of the UK and more or less every aspect of your private and business life these days was dictated by dictats from an unelected court in a foreign land. "

Perhaps if that were true, I'd have a different opinion.

You have a lot of elected courts in the UK? didn't think so. We don't have any here, either.

What we do, kinda like what I think you do, is elect governments that then make public policies. If you don't like the governments and the policies, you vote against them. If you lose, you can be a sore loser if you like. And call people who are really undoubtedly quite intelligent "idiots".


"I would ask what right do a bunch of unelected people based in the middle of Europe have to dictate to and impose their will on British insurers? "

I guess you should ask your governments that. But once again, I'll ask: do you elect courts in the UK? Or do you elect the governments that signed on to the European institutions?

And do no British citizens, appointed by British governments, sit on any of these European institutions? Hmm.

Evidently all of the European governments that took part in the proceedings supported the discriminatory pricing policy, or so I assume. Stop feeling so persecuted.

This is the complete opinion, by the way. I know I always like to know what I'm talking about before expressing one, myself! --

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-236/09

Huh. I see the Court was thinking along the same lines as me ...
(oops, no, this is the opinion of the Advocate General ... gotta sort this stuff out ...)


48. However, that discretion on the part of the Council is not boundless. In particular, the exercise of that discretion cannot have the effect of frustrating the implementation of a fundamental principle of European Union law. (33) Those fundamental principles of European Union law include not least the specific prohibitions of discrimination laid down in Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

49. The Council may not therefore, for example, permit a person’s race and ethnic origin to be used as a ground for differentiation in insurance. (34) In a Union governed by the rule of law, which has declared respect for human dignity, human rights, equality and non-discrimination to be its overriding principles, (35) it would without doubt be extremely inappropriate if for instance, in the context of medical insurance, varying risks of contracting skin cancers were to be linked to the skin colour of the insured person and either a higher or lower premium were thus to be demanded of him.

50. It is equally inappropriate to link insurance risks to a person’s sex. There is no material reason to assume that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex under European Union law provides less protection than the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origin under European Union law. Like race and ethnic origin, gender is also a characteristic which is inseparably linked to the insured person as an individual and over which he has no influence. (36) In addition, a person’s gender, unlike, for instance, his age, (37) is not subject to any natural changes.

51. It is therefore only logical that in Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/113 the Council prohibited in principle the use of sex in the calculation of insurance premiums and benefits. Even costs related to pregnancy and maternity, although they can for obvious biological reasons only arise in the case of women, (38) must, under Article 5(3) of Directive 2004/113, not result in differences in premiums and benefits for male and female insured persons.

in this province ................... in general, the worst drivers are young (under 25), male AND female, of a certain race.
It has become something of a joke, and even one that good drivers of that same race will turn against themselves, as in "how can I be a good driver when I am (race)".

Then come under-25 males of all races, followed by under-25 females



it seems to be a combination of inexperience and testosterone!


JC ...... we have graduated driving licenses here as well, and it has improved matters

I do have to agree that I can not see why the UK went into the European Union ................... all I see are decisions as to why British beer must no longer be made the British way, or why Scotch should not be made as it has been made, why this or that food must be changed, etc etc

Most of them overturned, or under challenge, of course


As you don't have the Euro, I don't see the benefit ........ other than the European passport and ease of travel within Europe.




s
xxx

Sylvia, really, the European Communities / European Union have been a long time in the making -- decades -- and ... I don't know, I just don't know what to say to comments like "they're idiots" or "all I see are ...".

There is a complex history of trade agreements, for starters. And the whole free movement across borders isn't exactly something to sniff at. Or at least so I assume all the Brits lounging around in more southern climes 12 months a year would say.

Consider NAFTA. We seriously did get screwed in that one: softwood lumber. And lost jobs, and always the looming threats to the water supply and health insurance. And have we got any easier movement across borders? Nope, screwed there too; nothing but constant tightening of the border. These complaints about beer and scotch really don't measure up to the scale of a genuine disaster, compared to what we got.

Equality rights rulings aren't a function of "Europe". They're a function of this being the 21st century, much to the chagrin of right-wingers as that may be.

JC

part of the problem, I think, is that the Brits are like the Canadians ...... the population was dragged unwilling into the agreement made by politicians


and the complaints about the quality of the beer or of scotch IS vastly important to the ordinary Brit ..... especially when they put it against the lager-style that is what the Europeans were attempting to force on them.


As I understand it ..... all beers had to be made the same in whatever the country, so you could no longer have British beer, or German, or whatever

it seemed as if even micro-breweries were not to be allowed



never ever separate the British workman from his beer!



s

Breakfast is ready .......... as long as the power has not gone out!



Tea, coffee, juices


Cold cereals:-
Corn Flakes, Triple Berry Oatmeal Crisp, Raisin Bran, Apple Cinnamon Cheerios, Granola, Vector


Hot cereal:-
Porridge, Maple Sugar Oatmeal

In the warmer:-

bacon, sausage patties, turkey sausages, hash browns, omelettes, poached eggs, grilled tomatoes


Toast, Danish, croissants, crumpets


Jams, jellies, lime marmalade, Marmite, Vegemite






I hope you all have a good day






s
xxx

We used to have fire extinguishers that made sense


Water extinguishers red

Foam extinguishers cream

Powder extinguishers blue

Carbon dioxide extinguishers black

That was until Europe got involved and now ALL extinguishers are 'Signal Red'....you have to read the label to see what they contain, just what you want in a time of sheer panic!