Current best practices

AuthorKádár, András
Testing by the Equal Treatment Authority: Both NGOs and the Equal Treatment
Authority (based on a specific statutory authori sation in the case of th e latter) use
testing to establish disc rimination in cases that allow for this type of evidence to be
The referee system established by the Equal Treatment Authority: As a Buda pest-
based administrative organisation, complainants outside the capital found it very
difficult to access the Authority. This realisation motivated the setting up of a system
of referees in each county in Hungary. The referees meet with clients in different
locations (NGO offices, Govern ment offices, community centres), provide them with
free legal advice, and, in case s where discrimination is suspected, help them to
prepare written petitions to the Authority. Between 2009 and mid-2013, the referee
system dealt with over 7 000 client s, and forwarded 540 complaints to the
Authority.273 In 2017, the referee sy stem served 1 618 clients and forwarded 73
complaints to the Authority.274 In 2018, these numbers were 1 576 and 64,
respectively.275 It should be mentioned that e ven the use of referees h as not fully
resolved the access problem: as th e referees meet clients in county s eats and other
larger towns, most indigent victims of discrimination (many of whom live in rural
areas) may still find it difficult to avail themselves of the network’s se rvices.
After-school education programmes (tanodas): AEPs are a specific form of education
organised for underprivileged children with the aim of promoting their success in
education. They offer extracurricular pr ogrammes, such as tutoring and community
building p rogrammes. They fill a crucial gap in the ed ucation system (namely that
schools very rarely have the financial and human resources to effectively help
underprivileged children to catch up and to promote their educational success).
However, no normative support is available for them, they have been s upported on
a project-by-project basis in several different rounds of applications since 2002. This
has created temporal gap s in funding and significan t uncertainties concerning
sustainability. Despite negotiations regarding potential normative funding, ultimately
it was decided that the funding would be appl ication-based, but continuous. The call
for applications regarding the first funding period (up to the end of 2019) was
published in December 2018, and a ministerial decree was issued on the detailed
requirements set for AEPs.
Evolving jurisprudence concerning ways to end systemic discrimination: Following
the Curia’s Judgment No. Pfv .IV.20.085/2017276 u pholding a judicial order to close
down a segregated school, Hungarian courts seem to be moving away from the
interpretation that they may only d eclare the existence of systemic discrimination
and order in general terms without specifying the ‘how’ – that the respondent
should put an end t o the discrimination. In an increasing number of case s, courts
have started to prescribe specific measures to be taken in orde r to enforce the
requirement of equal treatment.
273, p. 16.
276 Curia, Pfv.IV.20.085/2017/9., 4 October 2017,

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT