"given the overwhelming evidence that young men are an exceptionally bad risk behind the wheel, and given that the exemption was formally linked to data showing that to be the case, why the judges could not let that exemption stand is beyond me."

This is the reason Bagehot gives for seeing a difference between sexual discrimination and sexuality or racial discrimination. This view implies that if convincing evidence were to show that black individuals were more likely to crash than white drivers then Bagehot would be equally willing to allow racial price discrimination by insurers provided they had good data to show this.

I suspect the true reason Bagehot feels uncomfortable with the ruling is more that the discrimination in this case favours females over males which would normally be considered positive discrimination. How would Bagehot feel if the discrimination had been against rather than for women?

The judgment cites Charter of Fundamental Rights repeatedly, including:

"32 Such a provision, which enables the Member States in question to maintain without temporal limitation an exemption from the rule of unisex premiums and benefits, works against the achievement of the objective of equal treatment between men and women, which is the purpose of Directive 2004/113, and is incompatible with Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter."

Open Europe appear to be correct, and the opt-outs can apparently be made meaningless.

If the purpose of insurance is to pool risk while encouraging responsible behaviour by making bad behaviour more expensive, then it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of sex, particularly because you can't reasonably expect people to change their sex to reduce their premium.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of insurance is to try and predict ahead of time the likely cost an individual will have overall, and ideally charge each person just as much as they will ultimately cost, then it is reasonable to discriminate on the basis of sex.

I think there's a tension between these two goals and it's not trivial to promote one ahead of the other. The more central the behaviour being insured is perceived to be to a decent life, the more the first purpose should be preferred; the more the behaviour is optional, incidental and basically a lifestyle choice, the more the second should be preferred.

How does driving measure up? A lot of it depends on where you live, public transport availability, and to make it messy, cultural norms. If you live in a rural area, it's a fact of life that you cannot live a free adult life without access to individual transportation. If you live in the middle of London, it's no huge loss, and besides, scooter insurance isn't terribly expensive.

My own opinion in this matter leans towards the first interpretation, but I wouldn't mind seeing sex discrimination for young drivers (say, under 30) to act as a discouraging factor (though I'm not sure there's good evidence to indicate that wealthier young males are less accident prone than poorer ones).

Dear Bagehot,

Looking at the full text of the ruling, you’ll see that the ECJ rules that the insurance industry’s derogation from the Gender Directive is incompatible with both the spirit of the Directive itself AND articles 21 (non-discrimination) and 23 (quality between men and women) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. See the relevant passage below:

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

“32 Such a provision, which enables the Member States in question to maintain without temporal limitation an exemption from the rule of unisex premiums and benefits, works against the achievement of the objective of equal treatment between men and women, which is the purpose of Directive 2004/113, and is incompatible with Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter.
33 That provision must therefore be considered to be invalid upon the expiry of an appropriate transitional period.
34 In the light of the above, the answer to the first question is that Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/113 is invalid with effect from 21 December 2012. “

Given this, how can you say that the ruling is not based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Agree completely with Jon Mellon. Using race-and-crime statistics, I assume that Bagehot would agree that Blacks in the US should pay significantly more for personal liability insurance (included in home insurance in the US). After all, there is "overwhelming evidence" that US blacks are more likely to commit a crime (and hence more likely to be civilly liable for it).

Or is it possible that a court would issue some "daft" ruling prohibiting such a practice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime

I don't see that this makes the EU harder to defend in the UK. The papers already blame it for straight bananas, banning sausages and chocolate, and a whole range of other outright falsehoods and wild exaggerations. What difference will a little bit of accuracy make?

Quote: "JUDGES at the European Union's highest court today made it just that bit harder to defend the EU in Britain" You mean they made *your* job just that bit easier? Since it usually consists of bashing the EU and the French for everything that is wrong on our blue and green planet.

Memo to Bagehot - you *are* Bagehot, not Charlemagne.

And to clarify, "In this blog, our Bagehot columnist surveys Britain's political landscape, while also sharing his observations on art, football and British life."

So leave the EU alone and give us something about British stuff.

If the Daily Mail comment section is anything to go by, they've made the EU that little bit easier to defend to male drivers between 17 and 26.