Latest developments in 2019

• Author: Lappalainen, Paul
• Pages: 101-105

101

12 LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2019

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:

https://www.do.se/globalassets/diskrimineringsarenden/tingsratt/dom-tingsratt-

skolatillganghet-malmotrt11646-17.pdf

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:

https://www.do.se/globalassets/diskrimineringsarenden/hovratt/dom-hovratt-kommun-

anm2017-85.pdf

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.