Whether the failure of a municipality to adequately plan and prepare the winding up of a segregated Roma neighbourhood (and thus creating the threat of homelessness among the concerned families) amounts to discrimination
In order to harmonise national legislation with international documents (primarily with United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities and the Optional Protocol to the Convention) as well as to improve anti-discriminatory legal framework on protection of persons with disabilities, Montenegrin Parliament adopted the new Law on Prohibition Against Discrimination of Persons with Disabilities on 26 June 2015.
On 21 May 2015, the Slovak Parliament adopted a new Civil Dispute Act. The Act will have impacts on proceedings concerning alleged violations of the principle of equal treatment. The Act will come into effect on 1 July 2016.
On 30 June 2015, the Slovak Parliament adopted an amendment to the Schools Act that contains various provisions allegedly aimed at de-segregation of Roma children in education. However, the content of the provisions adopted and the collisions with other provisions that still exist in the Slovak legal order generate confusions and show no real potential for de-segregation of Roma children.
1. Definition of disability.
2. Obligation to establish reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.
3. Whether a national provision entitling a dismissal with a shorter notice period because of sickness related absence is in conflict the Directive 2000/78.
On 9 March 2015, the Labour Tribunal of Mons and Charleroi ruled that the lay-off of an employee suffering from multiple sclerosis constituted direct discrimination and violated the obligation of reasonable accommodation. It convicted the defendant to pay 17.319,48 euro compensation for damages corresponding to six months’ salary.
On 18 May 2015, the Labour Tribunal of Brussels ruled that the prohibition to wear the headscarf at work did not constitute discrimination on the ground of religion or belief. The Labour Tribunal referred to previous similar decisions of the Labour Courts of Appeal of Brussels and Antwerp.
On 17 March 2015, the Labour Tribunal of Antwerp ruled that an employer who sent offensive emails on the religion of his employee did not discriminate against him. According to the Tribunal, the applicant failed to prove that he had been treated differently from the other employees because of the offensive emails.
Ombudsman concludes that municipal decrees aiming to drive indigent families (most of them Roma) out of the city or to prevent them from moving in are discriminative. Other serious violations are also discovered in relation to the practice of social housing in Miskolc.