Latest developments in 2019

AuthorLappalainen, Paul
12.1 Legislative amendments
There were no legislative amendments to anti-discrimination law in 2019.
12.2 Case law
Name of the court: Malmö District Court
Date of decision: 18-11-2019
Name of the parties: Equality Ombudsman v RF school
Reference number: Case T 11646-17
Address of the webpage:
Brief summary: According to the DO, from March to August 2016, the school acted in
different ways to encourage the family of AA to transfer AA to a school other than RF School
due to reasons connected to AA’s high-level autism. This occurred through the questioning
of AA’s suitability in regard to an ordinary elementary school education and creating
uncertainty about RF School’s ability to take in AA. This was alleged to be direct
discrimination. The DO also alleged that RF School violated the Discrimination Act in regard
to inadequate accessibility through the failure to provide the necessary accessibility
measures. The DO was in part successful in that the court determined that the school had
caused uncertainty about the school’s ability to take in AA and provide the needed support.
This constituted direct discrimination with a connection to disability in regard to AA, BA
and CA (AA’s parents). However, the court did not hold that RF School’s actions amounted
to inadequate accessibility. It was not proven that the school had failed to live up to its
duty to put in place accessibility measures.
The court awarded SEK 20 000 (EUR 1 880) in discrimination compensation to AA.
However, since the DO was unable to satisfactorily prove the inaccessibility, the larger
portion of the complicated case, the court ordered the DO to pay the trial costs of the
school in the amount of about SEK 500 000 (EUR 47 000).
Name of the court: Skåne and Blekinge Appeal Court
Date of decision: 07-10-2019
Name of the parties: Equality Ombudsman v Malmö kommun
Reference number: Case T 183-19
Address of the webpage:
Brief summary: A same sex couple had a child as the result of an assisted insemination
process outside the country. Their local government refused to confirm the parenthood of
one woman since the insemination took place outside the country. This occurred in spite
of the production of a mutual consent form, which would have been sufficient for a
heterosexual couple. This meant that the couple had to go through an unnecessary and
offensive fatherhood investigation.
The DO asserted that Malmö had implemented the Parental Code rules in a manner that
violated the Discrimination Act. Furthermore, the city failed to comply with the constitution,
the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Charter of Fundamental
Rights which prohibit implementation of laws that discriminate due, among other things,
to sexual orientation.
The appeal court confirmed the judgment of the district court. The district court held that
there was no discrimination as Malmö had implemented the law in the manner intended.

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