In a publication by the Federal Antidiscrimination Body (Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes), the following excerpt appears regarding § 2 (1) 7 AGG:
Bei Benachteiligungen von Studierenden ist das AGG nur dann anwendbar, wenn es sich um private Hochschulen handelt, die zivilrechtliche Verträge mit den Studierenden abschließen […] Bei öffentlichrechtlichen Bildungsträgern findet das AGG hingegen für die Studierenden zwar über § 2 Absatz 1 Nummer 7 AGG Anwendung, enthält jedoch keine Rechtsfolgen. (emphasis mine)
It's clear from the excerpt that the substantive difference is that there are no legal consequences to be pursued at public higher education institutions under the statute. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but if X is only anwendbar when Y, then how can X also Anwendung finden in case Z, which is disjoint from Y? That is, the set of private institutions of higher education (Y) is disjoint from the set of public ones (Z), regardless if the former has entered into contracts with its students or not.
Because this doesn't make full sense to me from a prepositional logic point of view, I'm wondering if there is some subtle, hidden nuance in the two words that is escaping me.
Duden states:
anwendbar: zur Anwendung geeignet
There is no entry for Anwendung finden, unfortunately, but there are a couple other entries which contain the expression:
- das Anwenden: zur Anwendung kommen/gelangen/Anwendung finden (Papierdeutsch; angewendet werden)
- ungewöhnliche Situation, in der nicht die üblichen Mittel, Maßnahmen zu ihrer Bewältigung Anwendung finden können
Would appreciate an extra pair of eyes on this...
Related SE question: What does it mean for a statute such as § 2 (1) 7 AGG to "apply" but have no legal consequences?