Skip to content

In order for discrimination to be established as occurring in contravention of the norms discussed above there must be (a) a difference in treatment between (b) persons who are in analogous or relatively situations by (c) reference to one of the prohibited grounds where (d) there is no objective and reasonable justification for this difference in treatment.

A difference in treatment may arise from action taken by the state in the form of, e.g., prohibiting or requiring certain conduct, imposing or removing certain disqualifications, giving or denying various opportunities or affecting particular interests or possessions.

Persons claiming to be subject to discrimination will need to demonstrate that their position is analogous or relatively similar to that of others benefiting from more favourable treatment and thus identify an appropriate comparator.2187

Tribunals applying global and European norms against discrimination have recognised that discrimination may be either direct or indirect in character. Discrimination will be direct where it is established that the reason for the difference in treatment was a prohibited ground whereas it will be indirect where a condition, practice, requirement or rule has a disproportionate impact upon a particular class or group of persons despite being neutral on its face with respect to the treatment of different classes or groups. Indirect discrimination may also arise from a de facto situation.2188 In assessing this impact, statistical evidence can be sufficient to put the burden on the State concerned to justify the difference in treatment.2189


Footnotes

  1. ECtHR (GC), Application No. 13378/05, Burden v. United Kingdom, 29 April 2008 (cohabiting sisters not analogous to married persons or civil persons who did not have to pay inheritance tax on their home).

  2. See, e.g., ECtHR (GC), Application No. 57325/00, D H v. Czech Republic, 13 November 2007 (in which it was established that Roma children were disproportionately found in special educational needs schools and thus received an inferior education) and UN H.R.Cttee., No. 760/1997, Diergaardt v. Namibia, 20 July 2000 (in which Afrikaans speakers were found to be disproportionately affected by the practice of using English in communications with public officials).

  3. See, e.g., ECtHR (GC), Application No. 57325/00, D H v. Czech Republic, 13 November 2007.

Share this page

This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.