Decisions of Discrimination Tribunal 2007

Discrimination, dwelling rental, special conditions, lack of means, notice of conditional fine

NATIONAL DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL

Reg. No: 646/66/2007
Date of issue: 19.11.2007

Members of the Roma population A and B had applied for a rented dwelling from property company Kiinteistö Oy K, which had set the condition for entry into a lease agreement with the applicants whereby the City of Raahe social services would act as an intermediary lessor for the applicants. According to the City of Raahe social services, such an intermediary lessor arrangement was not required for members of the mainstream population lacking of means who were in a comparable position. K stated that A and B had not been offered a dwelling due to their lack of income and means on the ground that the tenant’s capacity to pay rent needs to be ensured. The National Discrimination Tribunal found that the ground provided by K for the intermediary lessor arrangement could not be regarded as an acceptable reason for placing someone in a more unfavourable position. Such special conditions had been required from the applicants that were not required from members of the mainstream population.

Oulu Administrative Court Decision 09/0554/1
Oulun hallinto-oikeuden päätös 13.11.2009 Dnro 00177/08/1205 (pdf, 10.64 Mt)

Supreme Administrative Court Decision Docket No 4019/1/09
Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätös 3.12.2010 Dnro 4019/1/09 (pdf, 31.99 Mt)

-----------------------

Discrimination, refugee, insurance services, presumption of discrimination, burden of proof

NATIONAL DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL

Reg. No: 2360/66/2006
Date of issue: 17.9.2007

Petitioner’s claim:

The Ombudsman for Minorities requested that the National Discrimination Tribunal prohibit the City of X Local Insurance Association, on pain of a fine, from continuing or repeating the ethnic discrimination of A and his family or other customers in the provision of insurance services.

Grounds for the National Discrimination Tribunal’s decision:

Under the Non-Discrimination Act, discrimination based on ethnic origin covers matters concerning services offered to the general public or distributed to the general public that do not concern relationships between private individuals.

Under the Non-Discrimination Act, discrimination means the treatment of a person less favourably than the way another person is treated, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation.

Social worker B of the City of X stated that C, the managing director of City of X Local Insurance Association, said over the telephone that, on the basis of a risk assessment conducted, the company does not provide refugees with household insurance policies as this is not profitable. Social worker B’s statement was rejected by managing director C.

C and B had a telephone conversation on 1 February 2006. Their accounts of the content of the telephone conversation differ considerably from each other. B has subsequently been unable to recall the contents of the conversation in detail. Injured party A did not understand what was said during the actual telephone conversation. Interpreter D, who was present, cannot remember the exact wording used by B.

No specific application for insurance has been made, and the defendant has not otherwise received any further details of the person to be insured. Therefore it is not possible to determine whether or not the case constitutes discrimination.

National Discrimination Tribunal’s decision:

Application rejected.

The decision is unanimous and in accordance with the referendary's presentation.

Legal provisions applied:

Sections 2(2)(4), 6(2)( 1) and 17 of the Non-Discrimination Act

Appeal instructions:

Appended.

Supreme Administrative Court Decision Docket No 4309/3/10
Hogsta forvaltningsdomstolen besvarsom galler diskriminering 25.11.2011 Dno 4309/3/10 (pdf, 2.35 Mt)

----------------------

Discrimination, restaurant, ethnic origin, employer’s instructions, notice of conditional fine

NATIONAL DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL

Reg. No: 879/66/2007
Date of issue: 8.10.2007

Member of the Roma population A had not been served in restaurant boat M. Member of the restaurant’s service staff B refused to serve A, stating director C's order not to serve "gypsies" as the reason. According to B, the Roma had previously caused disturbances in the premises, whereby, according to the director of the restaurant, the Roma were not to be served. Accompanying A, D had heard B to inform A that she would not serve "gypsies". The National Discrimination Tribunal found on the basis of the information provided by the petitioner and the pre-trial investigation material concerning the case that the reason for the restaurant employee’s conduct had been the employer’s specific instruction not to serve the Roma. The National Discrimination Tribunal prohibited business operator C and Grillipub X Ky from repeating the discrimination based on ethnic origin of A or other customers on pain of a fine of EUR 500.

----------------------

Discrimination, clothing store, ethnic origin, maintenance of order, harassment, burden of proof, presumption of discrimination, notice of conditional fine

NATIONAL DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL

Reg. No: 2436/66/2006
Date of issue: 7.6.2007

A party of four Roma women were refused service in a clothing store and requested to leave under the threat of a guard being called in as the clothing store regarded the large size of the group to constitute a risk to the maintenance of order in the store. According to the Roma women, they were refused service on the basis of their ethnic origin. They had regarded the situation as embarrassing as there were also other customers in the store and A worked as a public servant. The National Discrimination Tribunal regarded the service provision of the clothing store as discriminatory and harassing. The National Discrimination Tribunal prohibited the clothing store from continuing or repeating the conduct that is in violation of the prohibition of discrimination laid down in the Non-Discrimination Act or the refusal of service provision to A, F, G and H or other members of the Roma population. To encourage immediate compliance with the prohibition of discrimination, a conditional fine of EUR 500 was imposed on the clothing store.

----------------------