Current best practices

• Author: Kádár, András
• Pages: 122-122

122

10 CURRENT BEST PRACTICES

− 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

gathered.

− 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 http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/hu/kiadvany/tamop-555081-zarokiadvany, p. 16.

274 http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/hu/eves-tajekoztato/egyenlo-banasmod-hatosag-2017-evi-tevekenysege-

szamok-tukreben.

275 http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/hu/eves-tajekoztato/az-egyenlo-banasmod-hatosag-2015-evi-

tevekenysege-szamok-tukreben.

276 Curia, Pfv.IV.20.085/2017/9., 4 October 2017, http://cfcf.hu/sites/default/files/Kaposvar2_Kuria.pdf.