## Facts

- Roman Angonese, an Italian national from Bolzano (South Tyrol), was bilingual in Italian and German and had studied in Austria.
- Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA, a private bank in Bolzano, announced a recruitment competition requiring proof of bilingual proficiency.
- The bank accepted only a specific “certificate of bilingualism” issued by the Province of Bolzano and refused to consider alternative proof of language ability.
- The certificate could be obtained only by passing an exam held in Bolzano a limited number of times each year.
- Angonese lacked the provincial certificate and was denied admission to the competition.
- Angonese challenged the requirement in Italian court as contrary to the EU free movement of workers and the prohibition on nationality discrimination; the national court sought a preliminary ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the Treaty prohibition of nationality-based discrimination in access to employment (then Article 48 EC; now Article 45 TFEU) applies to conditions set by private employers.
2. Whether requiring language proficiency to be proven exclusively by a single certificate issued only in one province constitutes prohibited indirect discrimination and an unjustified restriction on free movement of workers.

## Decision

- The Court of Justice held that the Article 48 EC prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality applies to private employers as well as public authorities.
- The Court held that Article 48 EC precludes an employer from requiring proof of language knowledge exclusively by a particular certificate obtainable only in one province of a Member State.
- The Court treated the requirement as indirectly discriminatory because it disproportionately disadvantaged non-local and other Member State workers, making access to employment difficult or impossible for many.
- The Court accepted that language knowledge can be a legitimate job requirement, but found the exclusive certificate requirement disproportionate because it barred other reliable evidence of competence.
- The case was returned to the national court to resolve the dispute under the Court’s interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- The Treaty rule prohibiting nationality discrimination in access to employment (free movement of workers) has horizontal direct effect and can be enforced against private employers.
- A formally neutral employment condition breaches EU law if it produces a disproportionate disadvantage for non-nationals (indirect discrimination) unless objectively justified and proportionate.
- Language proficiency requirements may be legitimate, but the means of proof must be non-exclusive and proportionate; restricting proof to a locally obtainable certificate that others have little chance of acquiring is unlawful.

## Conclusion

The Court of Justice ruled that EU free-movement nondiscrimination rules bind private employers and that a hiring condition requiring a locally issued bilingualism certificate as the sole proof of language ability is indirectly discriminatory and disproportionate, violating Article 48 EC (now Article 45 TFEU).


Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA, Case C-281/98, 2000 E.C.R. I-4139 (Ct. J. 2000)