Latest developments in 2019

• Author: Durbáková, Vanda
• Pages: 106-109

106

12 LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2019

12.1 Legislative amendments

There have been no amendments to anti-discrimination legislation in 2019.

12.2 Case law

Name of the court: The Constitutional Court of Slovak Republic

Date of decision: 15 November 2018 delivered on 28 January 2019

Name of the parties: I.H. v. Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic

Reference number: IV ÚS 573/2018 - 13

Address of the webpage:

https://www.ustavnysud.sk/vyhladavanie-rozhodnuti#!DecisionsSearchResultView

Brief summary: The claimant, Mr. I.H., who is of Roma ethnic origin, filed a constitutional

complaint against the decisions of the general courts in his case of racial discrimination –

the refusal by a mobile operator company to provide him with a phone service for a fixed

tariff. In his constitutional complaint, he claimed that the general courts452 violated his

right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Slovak Constitution. Among other things, he argued

that his right to a fair trial was violated by the decisions of the lower courts, which

dismissed his claim for discriminato ry treatment. According to the general courts, due to

the particular circumstances of the case neither defendant was responsible for the alleged

discriminatory treatment. In this regard, the general courts concluded that an employee

of the service provider was responsible for the discriminatory treatment, but that the

service provider no longer had a contract with the mobile operator and its successor could

not be found responsible as the right to protection from discrimination is a personal right

(similar to the right to be free from interference with one’s personal dignity) which cannot

be transferred to the company's successor, although it succeeds to all its rights and duties

(universal succession). As for the mobile operator, the courts did not find it to be

responsibile as it did not have direct contact with the claimant. On 15 November 2018, the

Constitutional Court dismissed the claimant's constitutional complaint. The Constitutional

Court did not find the legal opinion and reasoning of the lower courts on the lack of

responsibility of defendants for the discriminatory treatment to be unconstitutional – in

violation of the claimant’s right to a fair trial. Like the general courts, the Constitutional

Court concluded that a violation of the principle of equal treatment has a personal character

and cannot be transferred by contract to the legal entity's successor. That is why, according

to the Constitutional Court, in cases of discrimination the only person who discriminates

can be responsible for discriminatory treatment is the one who discriminates. The

Constitutional Court did not find unconstitutional the legal opinion of the Slovak general

courts that responsibility for discriminatory treatment is solely personal, which is why it

cannot be transferred to other legal entities although there was universal succession to the

rights and duties.

Name of the court: The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic

Date of decision: 29 November 2018 delivered on 8 March 2019,

Name of the parties: Porada pre občianske a udské práva (Centre for Civil and Human

Rights) v. District prosecution Vranov nad Topou in the proceeding file no. Pd 55/16/7713-

6Ľ Regional prosecution in Prešov in the proceeding file no. Kd 214/16/7700 and General

prosecution of Slovak Republic in the proceeding file no. VI/2 Gd 347/16/1000

Reference number: IV ÚS. 644/2018-10

Address of the webpage: https://www.ustavnysud.sk/vyhladavanie-rozhodnuti#

Brief summary: A claimant - a local human rights NGO - in July 2016 filed a complaint

with the district prosecution addressing the illegality of the municipality regulation of the

town Vranov nad Topov, setting up school catchment areas for primary schools established

by the town. Based on statistics gathered on the numbers of Roma children in primary

452 Judgment of the Regional Court in Kosice from 18 September 2013 n. 5 Co 197/2012 and Decision of the

Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic from 8 December 2016, No. 3 Cdo 405/2015 – 773.