Fundamental Rights Agency > Research and analysis > Case Law
 
 
Access to

by charter article

by ECHR article

by deciding body

by type of case

by year

About Case Law

Case Law

Equal Treatment Commission
10/05/2007
Legal provision Directive 2000/43/EC, Directive 2000/78/EC
Area Goods and services, Education
Form of Discrimination Indirect discrimination
Grounds of discrimination Discrimination on ground of religion or belief, Discrimination on ground of racial or ethnic origin
Topic Discrimination by public bodies, Minorities
Discrimination on ground of religion or belief , Discrimination on ground of racial or ethnic origin , Netherlands , Education .
Key facts of the case:

A school submits an intended code of conduct to the Commission to be tested against the law. One of the regulations requires that parents shake hands upon entering and leaving the school. Another rule prescribes that all pupils are obliged to attend school camp.

Main reasoning/argumentation:

Some parents refuse to shake hands with persons from the opposite sex because of religious convictions. The Commission decided that by obliging these parents to shake hands the school would discriminate on grounds of religion. The Commission deems the requirement inappropriate and unnecessary for the accomplishment of the aim of introducing respectful conduct within the school, particularly in light of the fact that other respectful forms of greeting are available.
In the opinion of the Commission no relation between a man’s refusal to send his daughter to a school camp and his religious beliefs have so far been poven. In case a pupil and/or parent can prove that concerned refusal is connected to - or springs forth from - religious motives, this could establish indirect discrimination as concerned rule would then affect people from certain religious backgrounds disproportionally. According to the Commission, however, this indirect discrimination can be justified objectively. The means used by the respondent to reach the pedagogical aim, the conclusion of an eight-year school period, is deemed appropriate and necessary, especially since respondent does offer an alternative to pupils who have specific needs when staying away from home. The respondent is therefore not unlawfully discriminating when obliging its pupils to take part in the school camp.

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case:

Indirect discrimination; objective justification and necessary measures to reach the legitimate aim.
Relationships
Relations deciding / involved body