El miedo a la participación

In Belgium, the specialised body, the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR), received 1,025 complaints regarding racism

in 200522 _{and 987 complaints in 2006. In 2005, 133 complaints were the subject of}

a mediation exercise and 24 complaints formed the basis for a judicial procedure. Official statistics on the amount of civil court cases regarding ethnic discrimination

in Belgium are not available. In at least three cases,23 _{sanctions (ranging from fines}

between 100 euros in a case of discrimination by a doorman in a discotheque and 650 euros in a case of discriminatory refusal to let an apartment) were imposed by courts in cases of ethnic discrimination.

In Denmark, the specialised body, the Complaints Committee for Ethnic Equal Treatment, received 98 complaints during 2006, and a total of 174 complaints in the period July 2003-December 2005. The Complaints Committee was able to establish discrimination in seven cases, recommending free legal aid for only one

in the specified period.24 _{The Complaints Committee does not have a mandate}

to hear witnesses or otherwise examine the facts of a case, and bases its findings solely on documentary evidence. Many cases have to be dismissed on this ground. The Complaints Committee does not apply the principle of the shared burden of proof and cannot recommend free legal aid when discrimination is not proven. The Danish government intends to abolish the Complaints Committee on Ethnic Equal

Treatment and to create a new equality body covering all grounds of discrimination.25

There were a few court cases26 _{against doormen at various discotheques for ethnic}

discrimination when refusing accessing to potential customers. The fine usually imposed in these cases amounted to 1,000 Danish kroner (about 135 euros).

In Denmark, the one and only case for which the Complaints Committee on Ethnic Equal Treatment had granted free legal aid so far was decided by the courts. The case concerned a technical school which allegedly followed discriminatory instructions of employers. The plaintiff, who was a student at this school, noticed a handwritten note stating that an employer did

not wish ‘P’ as trainees. ‘P’ meant ‘perker’, Danish slang for ‘Pakistani/Turkish’.

The teacher confirmed that a private employer had instructed the school not to send a person of the specified ethnic origin for training. The plaintiff also

22 Calculations by the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism.

23 Belgium/Correctionele Rechtbank Leuven (25.05.2005); Belgium/Rechtbank Brussel, Nr. 05/29/A (03.06.2005); Belgium/Cour d’appel de Liège (02..2005).

24 Calculations by the Complaints Committee on Ethnic Equal Treatment; Complaints Committee on Ethnic Equal Treatment Annual Report 2003/2004, p. 39; Complaints Committee on Ethnic Equal Treatment Annual Report 2005, p. 50.

25 Beskrivelse af regeringens forslag om oprettelse af et Fælles Klagenævn for Ligebehandling, available at: http://www.bm.dk/graphics/Dokumenter/Presse%20og%20nyheder/Pressemeddelelser/2006/061003_notat.pdf (2.0.2006).

26 Denmark/Copenhagen City Court judgment (0.0.2006), Denmark/Copenhagen City Court judgement (23.02.2006); Denmark/Copenhagen City Court judgment (6.03.2006); Denmark/Copenhagen City Court judgment (23.03.2006); Denmark/Copenhagen City Court judgment (06.04.2006).

i n t h e m e m b e R s t a t e s o f t h e e U

complained of experiencing reprisals from the school due to his complaint. The Complaints Committee for Ethnic Equal Treatment had recommended

free legal aid.27 _{The City Court of Copenhagen}28 _{and, on appeal, the Eastern}

High Court29 _{decided that it was not proven that there had been a violation}

of the Act of Equal Treatment neither in relation to the alleged differential treatment of trainees of Danish origin or trainees of another ethnic origin, nor in relation to the alleged reprisals towards the plaintiff. The City Court found that the handwritten note did not indicate that the teacher had been willing to fulfil discriminatory demands made by the specific company or other employers. The High Court based its decision solely on the reason that the plaintiff was not eligible for the trainee position due to lack of qualifications.

In Latvia, a package of draft amendments to eight pieces of legislation was developed in 2005 to transpose the Racial Equality Directive. Two draft amendments were adopted in 2005 and two in 2006 while the remaining four draft amendments are in the Parliament at various stages of progress. During 2005, the Latvian National Human Rights Office received 15 complaints concerning discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin and five complaints on

the grounds of language.30 _{Until December 2005, the Law on the Latvian National}

Human Rights Office (LNHRO) did not envisage representation of victims of

discrimination at court.31 _{The amendments to the legal basis of the Latvian National}

Human Rights Office adopted in December 2005 provide that the LNHRO has a right (however, not a duty) to represent victims of discrimination. This new role led to the first-ever ethnic discrimination court case in Latvia (see below). In 2005 the LNHRO created a Unit for Eliminating Discrimination, which would investigate cases of discrimination, analyse legislation, and raise public awareness. During 2006, the LNHRO received 49 complaints on the grounds of race or ethnicity. On 01.01.2007, the Ombudsman of the Republic of Latvia was established on the basis of the former LNHRO.

In Latvia, in 2006 the first-ever ethnic discrimination case was

reviewed by the Jelgava court:32 _{the Latvian National Human Rights Office,}

the national specialised body for the promotion of equal treatment, filed a complaint on behalf of a Roma woman who was refused employment in a children clothes store. The court awarded compensation of LVL 1,000 (EUR 1,422) for moral harm (see section 3.7).

In Austria, the specialised body, the Ombud for equal treatment (OET), recorded 337 complaints based on the ground of ethnic origin in the period

27 Decision of 0.09.2004 (j.nr, 730.4).

2 Denmark/Copenhagen City Court (29..2005).

29 Denmark/Eastern High Court, 5 afd. A.s. nr. B-402-05 (27.06.2006). 30 Latvian National Human Rights Office Annual Report 2005.

3 Information provided by the Latvian National Human Rights Office on 27.04.2005. 32 Latvia/Jelgavas tiesa, Case No C 5066406 (06.06.2006).

January-August 2006.33 _{The Equal Treatment Commission, a non-judicial body}

specialised on discrimination cases, consists of three senates covering all grounds of discrimination covered by Article 13 of the EC Treaty. Senate I does not deal with issues of ethnic discrimination, but exclusively with gender discrimination. Senate II deals with ethnic discrimination in employment cases and Senate III deals with cases of ethnic discrimination in education, services and other areas covered by the Racial Equality Directive. During 2006, Senate II received 11 applications concerning ethnic discrimination and Senate III received six applications concerning ethnic discrimination. During 2006, Senate II established one case of ethnic discrimination

and Senate III established four cases of ethnic discrimination.34 _{The decisions of the}

Equal Treatment Commission are non-binding and do not contain any sanction. By May 2006, all federal provinces transposed the EU anti-discrimination directives and established the required equality bodies. The equality bodies in seven federal provinces reported about 550 contacts and about one quarter was related to the grounds of ethnic origin or religion. Most of the respective cases dealt with employment issues and were resolved through mediation. There was only one court decision concerning ethnic discrimination in Austria in 2006 (see below).

In Austria, the first court ruling regarding discrimination on grounds

of ethnic origin based on the new Equal Treatment Act was issued.35 _The

plaintiff, a woman of Arab origin wearing a headscarf, was thrown out of a clothes shop by a shop assistant shouting: ‘We do not sell to foreigners.’ The court decided that the plaintiff was discriminated against on the ground of ethnic origin. The denial of service was declared to be direct discrimination and the behaviour was classified as harassment. The first instance decision was appealed. On 30.03.2007, the appeal court delivered its verdict and awarded

immaterial damages of 800 euros to the plaintiff.36

2.1.3. No data on effectiveness of legislation