12/17/2023 0 Comments Actio popularis law definition![]() ![]() The ERRC attributed this to anti-Gypsyism, and in particular, the effects of anti-Gypsyism on access to justice for Roma. In this respect, the ERRC pointed to the very low number of cases concerning discrimination against Roma that have reached the Court, as well as the Court of Justice of the European Union and domestic courts, despite widespread discrimination against Roma. ![]() The ERRC’s last point was that actio popularis litigation is a uniquely important means of challenging discrimination against Roma in Europe. In order to support this point, the ERRC provided an overview of school segregation cases litigated in Hungary and the consistent findings of the civil courts (before which anti-discrimination cases must be brought) that they lacked jurisdiction to impose specific remedies on the public bodies responsible for school segregation. ![]() The ERRC’s second point was that the domestic courts in Hungary have failed to provide effective sanctions against school segregation. The ERRC then gave a non-exhaustive overview of various ways in which Romani children are segregated in schools throughout Europe, with a particular focus on Hungary. In connection with this first point, the ERRC submitted that the Court had to use the term anti-Gypsyism to describe the significance, under the Convention, of the separation of Romani pupils into different schools, school buildings, or classrooms. The first was that school segregation is a persistent manifestation of anti-Gypsyism throughout Europe and appears in many perversely creative forms. The ERRC made three points in its intervention. So she should have litigated her own case before going to the European Court. In other words, the Court found that had this applicant brought her own case about her own situation in the courts in Hungary, those courts might have found a violation of her rights, even though they did not find in favour of CFCF that there was an overall situation of segregation. But in this particular case, the applicant had raised issues that were very specific to her – including the fact that her parents had not been able to make a voluntary and informed decision to send her to the school, and that she received an inferior education at the school. The judges said that, in principle, it might be possible to exhaust domestic remedies this way – that is, by bringing a case to the European Court after an NGO has complained unsuccessfully in the national courts about discrimination that affected you. The applicant argued that this was enough – she should not have to bring a separate case in her own name before going to the European Court of Human Rights. CFCF took a case in their own name in the national courts in Hungary to establish that there was school segregation, and the Hungarian Supreme Court ruled that there was no violation of the law. In this case, the person who brought the case did not exhaust domestic remedies – she never took her own case. Before someone can apply to the European Court of Human Rights, she must “exhaust domestic remedies”. In November 2017, the Court ruled that the complaint was inadmissible. litigation in its own name as an NGO) challenging the segregation. ![]() The case started when the Chance for Children Foundation (CFCF), a Hungarian NGO, took actio popularis litigation (i.e. The case concerns the segregation of Romani children in a school operated by the Greek Catholic Church in Nyíregyháza (Hungary). Kósa v Hungary (third-party intervention, 2017) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |