Argumentation of the Court of Strasbourg’s Jurisprudence regarding the discrimination against Roma

• Authors: del Llano Cristina Hermida

Title variants

PL

Orzecznictwo Trybunału w Strasburgu w sprawach związanych z dyskryminacją Romów

• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

PL

Przeciwdziałanie dyskryminacji ze względu na urodzenie lub przynależność państwową, a także ochrona dyskryminacją ze względu na rasę, były ściśle związane z początkami działalności Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka, jednak do 2005 r. ochrona w tym zakresie była stosunkowo słaba. Praktykę ukształtowało m.in. orzeczenie ETPCz w sprawie „Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of language in education in Belgium” v. Belgia z 1968 r.(1 EHRR 252), w którym trybunał stwierdził, że korzystanie z praw i wolności musi być zapewnione bez dyskryminacji, równość należy interpretować jako niedyskryminację, wyjaśniając, że nie oznacza to zakazu preferencyjnego traktowania. Cytowana decyzja jest istotna dla stosowania art. 14 Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka, co nie oznacza, że nie jest kwestionowana. Dobrym tego przykładem jest decyzja Anguelova vs Bułgaria (2002).

EN

While the Court has, to some degree, started to protect against discrimination based on birth or nationality, the protection against discrimination on the basis of race until 2005 has been very poor and dubious. Upon reviewing the case law of the ECHR, we find that since the case “Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of language in education in Belgium” v. Belgium in 1968, the Court has decided to opt in favor of the original English version of art. 14, which underscores that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms must be assured “without discrimination” and defends the concept that equality should be interpreted as non-discrimination, while clarifying that this disposition does not prohibit preferential treatment, such that, in the eyes of the Court, this principle is only violated when preferential treatment implies “a discriminatory treatment”, so the task for us is to determine in detail when the two are correlated. The cited decision is an essential reference as it provides the pointers needed to discern whether or not a violation of art. 14 exists, as in a “test” of equality that entails: (1) whether the distinction in treatment lacks objective justification; (2) whether the difference in treatment results in conformity with the objective of the effects of the measure examined attendant to the principles that generally prevail in democratic societies; (3) whether there exists a reasonable relationship between the means used and the end sought. Despite this interpretational recognition of art. 14, if we analyze in detail the Court’s jurisprudence, how the Court has approached the topic of discrimination on the basis of racial or ethnic origin is somewhat disappointing. The fact that during decades plaintiffs were required to provide proof beyond the shadow of a doubt has restricted the Court’s influence on discriminatory actions based on race or ethnicity; for this reason, it is not unexpected that in time critical dissidence arose, even within the Court itself. A good example of this is given by Judge Bonello in the decision Anguelova vs Bulgaria (2002). Here we analyze how the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg has evolved in the context of discrimination against Roma, so as to ascertain the challenges that remain in this area.

Keywords

EN

Human Rights, Discrimination, Roma People, Jurisprudence, European Court; of Human Rights

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Journal: Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego
• Year: 2015
• Issue: 6 (28)
• Pages: 11-38

Dates

published

2015-12-31

Contributors

author

del Llano Cristina Hermida

• Carlos University, Spain

References

• Andrés M.T., La comunidad gitana y la educación. Fundación Secretariado Gitano, http://www.uned.es/congreso-inter-educacion-intercultural/Grupo_discusion_3/40.%20T.pdf.
• Cahn C., Human Rights and Roma: What’s the Connection?, [in:] Roma Rights. Race, Justice and Strategies for Equality, International Debate Education Association, New York 2002.
• Cahn C., La indolencia de un tribunal: de cómo no afrontar la discriminación sistémica por origen racial en el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humano, “Revista de Derecho Europeo Antidiscriminación” 2006, 4: 9.
• Castles S., Ethnicity and Globalization. From Migrant Worker to Trasnational Citizen, Sage, London – Thousand Oaks and New Delhi 2000.
• Clements L., Litigating Cases on Behalf of Roma before the Court and Commission in Strasbourg. Roma Rights, 1998, http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=487.
• Dworkin R., Sovereign Virtue. The Theory and Practice of Equality, Harvard Univ. Press 2000.
• Eide A., Help eliminate Racism, [in:] New Expressions of Racism. Growing Areas of Conflict in Europe, Amsterdam 1987, City Hall, October 19–21.
• Ely J.H., Equal Citizenship under the XIV Amendment, “Harvard Law Review” 1977.
• Freixes Sanjuán T., Las principales construcciones jurisprudenciales del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. El standard mínimo exigible a los sistemas internos de derechos en Europa, “Cuadernos constitucionales de la Cátedra Fadrique Furió Ceriol” 1995, no. 11–12, dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=229839.
• Glenn H.P., The Cosmopolitan State, Oxford Constitutional Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013.
• Goldston J.A., Adjami M., The Opportunities and Challenges of Using Public Interest Litigation to Secure Access to Justice for Roma Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, Preliminary Draft, Subject to revision, Prepared for World Justice Forum, Vienna, July 2–5, 2008, p. 3, http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf/20080924043559_large.pdf.
• Goldston J.A., Adjami M., The Opportunities and Challenges of Using Public Interest Litigation to Secure Access to Justice for Roma Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, Preliminary Draft, Subject to revision, Prepared for World Justice Forum, Vienna 2008, July 2–5, http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf/20080924043559_large.pdf.
• Karst K.L., Equal Citizenship under the Fourtheenth Amendment, “Harvard Law Review” 1977.
• Lichfield J., Roma – the unwanted Europeans, “The Independent”, 27.10.2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/roma--the-unwanted-europeans-8906382.html.
• Liégeois J.-P., The Council of Europe and Roma: 40 years of Action, Council of Europe, Estrasburgo 2012.
• Rey F., Racismo líquido, [in:] Informe Anual FSG 2014. Discriminación y Comunidad Gitana. Fundación Secretariado Gitano, Madrid 2015.
• Schumann K., The role of Council of Europe, [in:] Minority Rights in Europe. The Scope for a Transnational Regime, London 1994.
• Stanislav D., The Legacy of D.H. and others: Four Years After. In: Roma Rights 2011: Funding Roma Rights: Challenges and Prospects. ERRC, 2012, http://www.errc.org/roma-rights-journal/roma-rights-2011-funding-roma-rights-challenges-and-prospects/4062/5.

Identifiers

ISSN

2082-1212