|
|
High Court of Appeal (Circuit Court) of Debrecen
|
|
|
Key facts of the case:In their appeal, the defendants contested the entitlement of an NGO to launch an actio popularis claim on the basis that the alleged victims of discrimination could be individually identified. They emphasized that the first instance court unlawfully ignored the declarations written by parents of the pupils, in which they have expressed their satisfaction with the education their children receive in the schools sued. They also claimed that the separation of Roma children was a result of their ethnic minority education, which provides a legitimate ground for separated education.Main reasoning/argumentation:The court acknowledged the legal standing of the NGO on the basis that the fact that at a given point in the proceeding, the number of pupils was defined by an expert does not mean that all alleged victims can be identified due to the possibility of future changes in the composition of the pupils and also changes during the proceeding itself. The court stated that defendants directly discriminated Roma pupils, because the buildings where the majority of Roma pupils study and where there almost exclusively Roma pupils, are much worse equipped than central school buildings. Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case:The court emphasized the difference between direct discrimination and segregation, and diverted from its earlier jurisprudence, which held that segregation does not require active behaviour or any segregating intent. In the present decision the court accepted the fact that the proportions of Roma and non-Roma children in the different buildings show a striking difference, it nevertheless rejected the claim to establish segregation on the basis that the plaintiff could not prove the defendants’ intent to cause or maintain this situation. The court also clarified requirements for legal standing in action popularis cases.Results (sanctions) and key consequences or implications of the case:The plaintiff launched an extraordinary remedy procedure before the Supreme Court. The case is pending
|