▁only ▁" vertical ▁direct ▁effect " ▁and ▁could ▁be ▁en force able ▁only ▁against ▁the ▁state , ▁the ▁Tre aty ▁article ▁ 1 1 9 ▁had ▁" horizontal ▁direct ▁effect " ▁and ▁thus ▁created ▁a ▁right ▁of ▁enfor cement ▁between ▁private ▁parties . ▁Nevertheless , ▁as ▁in ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁it ▁was ▁unclear ▁what ▁the ▁European ▁position ▁was ▁on ▁a ▁number ▁of ▁points . ▁Hence ▁a ▁reference ▁was ▁made ▁to ▁the ▁European ▁Court ▁of ▁Justice ▁asking ▁( 1 ) ▁whether ▁unf air ▁dismiss al ▁compens ation ▁was ▁" pay " ▁under ▁article ▁ 1 1 9 ▁( 2 ) ▁whether ▁unf air ▁dismiss al ▁fell ▁within ▁the ▁scope ▁of ▁article ▁ 1 1 9 ▁( 3 ) ▁what ▁the ▁legal ▁test ▁should ▁be ▁for ▁establish ing ▁a ▁dispar ate ▁impact ▁was ▁( 4 ) ▁when ▁a ▁state ' s ▁action ▁is ▁at ▁issue ▁which ▁time ▁is ▁relevant ▁between ▁when ▁a ▁measure ▁is ▁adopted , ▁brought ▁into ▁force ▁or ▁when ▁an ▁employee ▁is ▁dismiss ed , ▁and ▁( 5 ) ▁what ▁are ▁the ▁criteria ▁for ▁objective ▁just ification ? ▁ ▁European ▁Court ▁of ▁Justice ▁The ▁EC J ▁respond ed ▁that ▁unf air ▁dismiss al ▁compens ation ▁did ▁const itute ▁pay ▁under ▁T EC ▁article ▁ 1 1 9 , ▁and ▁that ▁unf air ▁dismiss al ▁legisl ation ▁therefore ▁fell ▁within ▁the ▁am bit ▁of ▁EU ▁measures ▁on ▁disc rim ination . ▁The ▁test ▁for ▁dispar ate ▁impact ▁would ▁be ▁bor ne ▁out ▁by ▁evidence , ▁including ▁statistics ▁and ▁the ▁relevant ▁time