Slovak Republic: Enforcement of the Antidiscrimination Act through the court system, including the number and types of cases brought forward and case outcomes; information on legal aid or other assistance available to discrimination victims and litigants (2010-September 2016)

Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ottawa

1. Enforcement of the Antidiscrimination Act

An English copy of the Slovak Republic's 2004 Antidiscrimination Act, as provided on the website of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (Slovenské národné stredisko pre l'udské práva, SNSLP), is attached to this Response. The SNSLP is the Slovak Republic's accredited national human rights institution created in relation to the Antidiscrimination Act (Slovak Republic 9 Sept. 2016).

A September 2016 report by the similarly named Slovak Centre for Civil and Human Rights (Poradna), a Slovak non-profit NGO that focuses on issues of discrimination and offers free legal advice and representation (Poradna 2016), states that

the implementation of the provisions of [the] Anti-discrimination Law by courts remains inconsistent and often flawed and that courts are not sufficiently informed about antidiscrimination legislation and its proper application in practice. Specifically, the application of reversed burden of proof continues to fall short of a legal consistency. (ibid. Sept. 2016, 5)

The same source further indicates that court proceedings for discrimination cases "continue to last excessively long periods (rarely less than several years)" and that the "courts remain extremely reluctant to award any financial compensation" (ibid.). Corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Embassy of the Slovak Republic in Ottawa provided information gathered from the Slovak Ministry of Justice, which stated that

individuals may bring cases of discrimination [forward] on their own. They may also be represented by an NGO or the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights. Cases are mostly brought by individuals, NGOs usually specialize in strategic litigation in various areas. (Slovak Republic 9 Sept. 2016)

1.1 Statistics

According to a 2016 submission to the European Union's EU Roma Framework, submitted by the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), a Budapest-based NGO that advocates for Roma issues (ERRC n.d), the "number of discrimination cases filed in Slovak courts remains constantly very low" (ibid. 19 Feb. 2016). A 2012 report produced by Poradna states that, based on "nationwide data collect[ed] [from] a representative sample of [the] Slovak population, conducted via personal interviews and responses recorded in a standardized questionnaire," of those who expressed having "subjectively felt discriminated against," 4.7 percent had "sought legal aid or dealt with their case by legal means [and] more than 92 [percent] ha[d] not taken any steps to defend themselves" (Poradna Aug. 2012, 129).

Information provided to the Embassy of the Slovak Republic in Ottawa by the Slovak Ministry of Justice stated that the Ministry

gathers statistics of final decisions of the general courts, based on information given by the courts. Currently the ministerial statistics only include [the] number of cases and amount of monetary compensation, if ordered by the court. These statistics show 23 cases of discrimination dealt with by the courts, with compensation ranging from 0 to 10 000 euros. Since 2011 [the] courts are obliged to publish their decisions online on the website of the [Ministry of Justice]. Using the data available there, there were more than 150 cases dealing with discrimination based on the Anti-Discrimination Act. (Slovak Republic 9 Sept. 2016)

The same source further notes that the data is "not disaggregated" (ibid.). According to an April 2016 joint report by the ERRC and the Centre for Civil and Human Rights (Poradna), "there is no hate crime data disaggregated on the basis of ethnicity" (ERRC and Poradna Apr. 2016, 2).

According to the Embassy, the SNSLP center "does not keep statistics of court cases which involve the Antidiscrimination [A]ct" and the courts have final judgments for discrimination cases (Slovak Republic 9 Sept. 2016). The Embassy stated that the Ministry of Justice provided their office with "only the number of final judgements" on discrimination related cases as follows:

• 2010: 3
• 2011: 3
• 2012: 1
• 2013: 5
• 2014: 3
• 2015: 8 (ibid.)

Further information, including content of the final judgements, could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

The 2012 Poradna report states that

[a]ccording to data provided to us by the courts in our monitoring from the date of effectiveness of the Anti-Discrimination Act as [of] 30 June 2012, the number of completed proceedings in the courts is 120, of which 41 proceedings were conducted in the regional courts. 35 legal proceedings were pending in general courts in Slovakia as [of] 30 June 2012, related to the breach of the principle of equal treatment, of which one case was a proceeding in the regional court.

The basis of our monitoring of the courts´ decision-making practices consisted of a total of 90 court decisions (55 decisions of the district courts, 31 decisions of the regional courts and 4 decisions of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic), which were issued by the courts in 45 judicial proceedings.

Based on the monitoring conducted we observed that the courts in Slovakia currently resolve primarily the cases of discrimination related to the breach of the principle of equal treatment in employment (26 cases). In these cases the courts also mostly admitted such statements of claim. Other proceedings related to discrimination in access to goods and services, including housing (11 proceedings). Five proceedings related to discrimination in access to employment, in one case discrimination in education was claimed and in two proceedings no claimed proceeding could be assigned to any area protected by the Anti-Discrimination Act.

As for discriminatory grounds adduced by plaintiffs in the proceedings, in the analyzed decisions plaintiffs claimed discrimination on grounds of nationality or ethnic origin in 15 cases. (Poradna Aug. 2012, 131)

Further information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

1.2 Cases

According to information provided to the Embassy by the Ministry of Justice, in 2010 a case was brought against an elementary school in Šarišské Michal'any for the "segregation of Roma pupils in the school," and in 2012 the Regional Court in Prešov "issued a final judgement whereby the segregation was confirmed and the school was obliged to cease and desist" (Slovak Republic 9 Sept. 2016).

According to a June 2016 press release by Poradna, court proceedings against "the primary school on Stará L'ubovna - Podsadek," for the alleged segregation of Roma children, were ongoing with a planned decision by October 2016 (Poradna 23 June 2016). The proceedings were initiated by Poradna (ibid.).

According to Poradna's 2014-2015 Annual Report,

In December 2015, the Slovak Constitutional Court overruled a case of a Roma woman, who unsuccessfully sought for recovery for discrimination in her access to employment. Following the Constitutional Court´s judgment, general courts violated her individual guaranteed right to fair trial… Ms. Pompová in 2010 applied for a position as field social worker in the city Spišská Nová Ves. Despite of a fact that she had a required education and numerous years of experience as field social worker in Roma communities, the position was offered to an applicant with non-Roma origin with lower education level and fewer years of experience who did not speak the Romani language. Consequently, Ms. Pompová initiated a court proceeding, to claim recovery from discrimination she was subject to. The District court in Spišská Nová Ves in 2012 dismissed her action as manifestly ill-founded. The decision was affirmed in 2013 by the Regional Court in Košice. The Slovak Constitutional Court affirmed the violation of the right to fair trial of the Plaintiff and asserted an erroneous interpretation of an anti-discrimination legislation by the general courts. Concurrently, the Slovak Constitutional Court annulled the judgment of the Regional Court and referred the case to the court for further proceeding. … We have been providing Ms. Pompová a legal representation, free of charge. (ibid. 2016)

The September 2016 Poradna report indicates that in spring 2016, "the courts awarded…600 Euro [about C$843] to [a] Roma couple who faced racial discrimination in access to services" and that this was the "first final decision of the Slovak court awarding some financial compensation in a case of racial discrimination" (ibid. Sept. 2016, 5). A June 2016 article from the same source states that in December 2009, the "two Roma customers - a couple - were not served in one of the bars in a small town in Spišské Vlachy…when they visited together with their non-Roma colleagues" (ibid. 26 June 2016). The couple had contacted Poradna and with the group's support were able to pursue the case under the Antidiscrimination Act (ibid.).

Information on additional cases, including judgments and compensation, could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

2. Legal Aid and Support Available to Victims and Litigants

According to information provided to the Embassy of the Slovak Republic in Ottawa by the Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Government for Roma Communities, their office "deals with specifics concerning cases and processing requests of Roma in the case of notifying the suspected violations of the principle of equal treatment by cooperating with the relevant law enforcement authorities" (Slovak Republic 9 Sept. 2016). According to the same source, their office also provides "information on legal aid, and if necessary…mediates [legal aid] assistance" (ibid.). For further information on the Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Government for Roma Communities, see section 7.1 of Response to Information Request SVK105533 of May 2016.

2.1 Legal Aid Centre

Information provided by the Ministry of Justice through the Slovak Embassy states that their "Legal Aid Centre provides legal aid, but only to people in material need" (ibid.). According to information provided to the Embassy by the Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Government for Roma Communities, legal aid can be "offered to the beneficiary without financial participation or the participation of a maximum of 20 [percent] of the cost of legal representation. These conditions shall be based on a person's income" (ibid.). The same source states that applicants for the free legal aid available from the Centre for Legal Aid must meet the following conditions: "the request must concern legal aid in civil disputes, labour law disputes, family law disputes and in asylum cases…material need must be assessed…[and] the case cannot be an obviously unsuccessful dispute" (ibid.). According to information provided by the Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Government for Roma Communities to the Slovak Embassy, the website for the Centre for Legal Aid "provides comprehensive information for persons in need of legal assistance" (ibid.). Information on the number of persons who have received legal aid from the Centre for Legal Aid could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

2.2 SNSLP Legal Aid

Information provided to the Slovak Embassy by the Ministry of Justice states that "legal aid and legal representation in cases of discrimination is provided by the SNSLP, with no specific qualification necessary" (ibid.). The SNSLP provides "independent assistance to victims of discrimination" and provided the following support and assistance services to discrimination victims:

• provision of information concerning the anti-discrimination legislation and means of legal protection and seeking redress or compensation for discrimination;
• assistance to people who have been discriminated against by contacting organizations/ institutions that could help them;
• assisting victims of discrimination to invoke their rights in voluntary settlement/mutual agreement (mediation);
• provision of legal assistance to people who have been discriminated.

Under the Antidiscrimination Act, the Centre is competent to represent a party in the proceedings on matters related to violation of the equal treatment principle. (Slovak Republic 9 Sept. 2016)

Information provided by the SNSLP also indicates that

concerning the overall number of complaints, in 2015 the Centre received 2171 complaints, 1588 of which [fell] within its mandate (areas of human rights and discrimination). More than a half, i.e. 822 complaints, concerned the principle of equal treatment. In 2014, the Centre received 2413 complaints, 1744 of which felt within its mandate and 1105 of which concerned the principle of equal treatment. In 2013, the Centre received 2621 complaints, 1820 of which felt within its mandate and 1043 of which concerned the principle of equal treatment. Since the statistical data were kept differently in the prior years, for the years 2010-2012 the following data can be provided. In 2012, the Centre received 2497 complaints, 1626 of which felt within its mandate including both allegations of discrimination and human right violations. In 2011, the Centre received 2335 complaints, 936 of which [fell] within its mandate. In 2010, the Centre handled 1418 complaints. (ibid)

Further information, including the outcome of these complaints to the SNSLP, could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

In regards to their legal aid provision, the SNSLP further stated that "[e]very person who feels discriminated can seek legal aid from the [SNSLP]" and that:

[t]he Centre provides legal representation free of charge; however, the represented person has to bear the costs of the proceedings. The representation covers the pre-trial legal representation when communicating with the other party and steps attempting to reach a settlement, drafting and submission of an action to the Court and representation during the court proceedings.

…

The Centre handles all received cases and primarily seeks to mediate out-of-court settlement for the parties involved. In case there are enough evidence and the settlement was not reached the Centre, with the consent of the client, files on the client´s behalf a legal action for the breach of the principle of equal treatment and further represents the client throughout the court proceeding. The consent of the client and sufficiency of evidence is required due to the fact that the client has to bear the costs of the legal proceedings (excluding legal representation fees since the Centre provides its services free of charge) and in case the victim is not successful he then has to pay the costs consisting also of the fees for legal representation of the other party. Since many of the clients cannot afford to face financial risks the Centre does not usually take upon cases where there is no written evidence or witnesses. (ibid.)

According to the same source, the SNSLP is "not aware of any official statistics on the number of people who have received legal aid for antidiscrimination cases in Slovak courts, neither general nor Roma-specific" (ibid.). For information on the treatment of LGBT Roma in Slovak Republic in relation to the Antidiscrimination Act, see Response to Information Request SVK105179, of June 2015. Further information on the effectiveness of SNSLP or other anti-discrimination protection mechanisms could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim for refugee protection. Please find below the list of sources consulted in researching this Information Request.

References

Center for Civil and Human Rights (Poradna ). September 2016. Written Comments Concerning the Fourth Periodic Report of Slovak Republic for Consideration by the United Nations' Human Rights Committee at the 118nd Session (17 October-04 November 2016). [Accessed 8 Nov. 2016]

Center for Civil and Human Rights (Poradna ). 26 June 2016. "Discrimination Must be Sanctioned: The Slovak Court Ordered a Bar Owner to Pay Compensation for Discrimination." [Accessed 8 Nov. 2016]

Center for Civil and Human Rights (Poradna ). 23 June 2016. "Press Release - In the Court Proceeding Against Segregation of Roma Children at the Primary School Stará Lubovna - Podsadek a Witness has Testified." [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016]

Center for Civil and Human Rights (Poradna ). 2016. Bi-Annual Report 2014/2015. [Accessed 15 Nov. 2016]

Center for Civil and Human Rights (Poradna ). August 2012. "Summary." Diskriminácia na Slovensku. [Accessed 8 Nov. 2016]

European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC). 19 February 2016. Written Comments by the ERRC to the European Commission on Progress in 2015 with the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies (NRIS). [Accessed 8 Nov. 2016]

European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC). N.d. "Who We Are." [Accessed 2 Dec. 2016]

European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and Center for Civil and Human Rights (Poradna ). April 2016. Written Comments of the European Roma Rights Centre and Center for Civil and Human Rights, Concerning Slovakia - For Consideration by the Committee on the Rights of the Child for the Consideration at its 72nd Session (17 May-3 June 2016). [Accessed 10 Nov. 2016]

Slovak Republic, Embassy of the Slovak Republic in Ottawa. 9 September 2016. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate

Additional Sources Consulted

Oral Sources: Center for Civil and Human Rights (Poradna ).

Internet sites, including: Amnesty International; ecoi.net; Factiva; Human Rights Watch; IRIN; Judicial Academy of the Slovak Republic; Transparency International Slovakia; United Nations – Refworld; United States – Department of State.

Attachment

Slovak Republic. 2004. ACT No. 365/2004 Coll. of 20th of May 2004 on Equal Treatment in Certain Areas and Protection against Discrimination, and on Amending and Supplementing Certain Other Laws as Amended (Anti-Discrimination Act). [Accessed 29 Nov. 2016]