Police height

European law prohibits direct and indirect sex discrimination as regards access to employment including selection criteria and recruitment conditions. In Ypourgos Esoterikon and Ypourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton v Kalliri, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that it was unjustified indirect sex discrimination to impose the same minimum height requirement on men and women applicants to the police force.

Basic facts

According to a provision of Greek law, all applicants, whatever their sex, had to be at least 1.70 metres tall to be enrolled into the Greek police academy for the academic year 2007-2008. Ms Kalliri applied to join but was refused entry on the basis that she was only 1.68 metres tall.

Decision of lower courts

The Court of Appeal in Greece upheld her claim of indirect sex discrimination holding that the provision was contrary to the constitutional principle of equality of the sexes.

The Greek Minister for the Interior (Ypourgos Esoterikon) and the Greek Minister for Education and Religious Affairs (Ypourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton) appealed against that decision to the Council of State. It asked the CJEU whether EU law precludes a national law which lays down a minimum height requirement for all candidates for entry into the police academy.

Relevant law

Article 1 of the Equal Treatment Directive provides that the principle of equal treatment means that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly.

Article 2 of the Directive provides that indirect discrimination is where an apparently neutral provision criterion or practice (PCP) would put persons of one sex at a particular disadvantage compared with persons of the other sex unless that PCP is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

Decision of CJEU

The CJEU held that fixing a minimum height requirement which applies to all candidates, whatever their sex, may constitute indirect sex discrimination if it puts more women at a disadvantage than men. However, indirect discrimination may be objectively justified by an aim where the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

Although it was for the national court to decide if the minimum height requirement was justified, the CJEU provided guidance to help it come to a decision. After holding that it was a legitimate aim to enable the police to achieve their tasks, the CJEU considered whether a minimum height requirement was a necessary and appropriate condition for achieving that aim.

Whilst it was true that arresting offenders and carrying out crime prevention patrols might require the use of physical force requiring a particular physical aptitude, it was also the case that certain police functions, such as providing assistance to citizens or traffic control, did not require the use of significant physical force.

In any event, even if all the duties of a police officer required a particular physical aptitude, there was nothing to suggest it was connected with being a certain height. In that context, it was worth noting that until 2003, Greek law allowed different minimum heights for men and women. And as Ms Kalliri pointed out, different minimum heights applied to the Greek armed forces, port police and coast guard.

The court therefore concluded that the main aim pursued by the Greek government could be achieved by measures that were less disadvantageous to women. For instance, by preselecting candidates based on specific tests that allowed for their physical ability to be assessed.