When all the people in a district are victims of race discrimination: CJEU ruling in CHEZ v Nikolova

Simon Cox, lawyer at the Open Society Justice Initiative* 

Last week’s CJEU judgment in C-83/14 CHEZ v Nikolova shows the important role of the CJEU to advance the struggle of Roma communities against systematic discrimination by businesses and Governments. Moreover, the Grand Chamber ruling on equal treatment establishes a powerful tool for districts marginalized by powerful actors.

The case is a great example of how the CJEU can empower lower national courts. The Bulgarian Anti-Discrimination Commission had repeatedly condemned as discriminatory the practice of electricity company CHEZ (aka CEZ) of placing meters out of reach of consumers only in Roma districts. But CHEZ – a powerful company in Bulgaria and Czech Republic - had persuaded the Supreme Court to reverse these rulings. To go over the head of the Supreme Court, the Anti-Discrimination Commission referred questions to the CJEU in Belov. But the CJEU ruled the Commission was not a court and rejected the reference as inadmissible. So the Sofia Administrative Court used the Nikolova case – an appeal by CHEZ already before it – to refer similar questions. This led to CHEZ judgment, in which the CJEU – though charged only with interpreting the law – helps the national court with a clear evidential and factual path to draft a judgment to survive further appeal.

Ms Nikolova is not Roma. Two arguments were made against her because of this. First, that a practice affecting a district could only be indirectly discriminatory on grounds of ethnic origin if everyone in the district had that ethnic origin. Second, that Ms Nikolova could not complain of discrimination. CHEZ accepted that the idea of ‘discrimination by association’ could extend the category of persons beyond those of Roma origin, but denied Ms Nikolova was sufficiently ‘associated’ with her Roma neighbours.

The Court rejected these arguments, ruling that the purpose of the Directive is to end discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, not only to protect individual members of groups who are targeted by discrimination (para 56). Accepting Ms Nikolova’s arguments, the CJEU repeated the passage from paragraph 50 of Coleman affirming that there is discrimination against any person who, on account of those grounds, suffers less favourable treatment or a particular disadvantage – regardless of the race or ethnic origin of that person. So, if a measure against a district is based on grounds of the Roma origin of the district’s majority, then the minority in that district are also victims of that discriminatory measure.

Through this approach, the CJEU affirms that the principle of equal treatment empowers every affected individual – and the courts - to end discrimination by all available means, urgently and effectively. Simplifying the law strengthens the ability of oppressed communities to combat discrimination. Challenges will surely continue to be made predominantly by people with the race or ethnicity on which the discrimination is based. But the court defeats CHEZ’s attempt to require that applicants ‘prove’ their own ethnicity and limits the enquiry to whether there is discrimination and if so whether this discrimination affects the claimant.

The Court ruled that CHEZ’s practice is direct discrimination, if the ethnicity of the majority is the reason for the practice, for example, if CHEZ selected the districts because of their Roma population (para 76).

The court made a fundamentally important ruling on indirect discrimination: this requires any measure disadvantaging a Roma majority district which is not applied to non-Roma majority districts to be objectively justified. CHEZ wanted a narrow interpretation of the comparator district, arguing that Ms Nikolova’s district could only be compared to districts with similar levels of interference with electricity meters. The Court rejected this, ruling that the appropriate comparators are other urban districts provided with electricity by CHEZ (para 90).

These rulings on ‘district discrimination’ are very powerful tools. Politically weak communities may be treated badly by government or business in areas like transport, power, schooling and other amenities. Where this differential treatment follows differences in ethnic make-up of districts, then groups or individuals in the district can use the ruling to bring discrimination claims. Courts can order disclosure of documents, to see if race was a factor in decision-making, as the CJEU affirmed at paragraph 78. Where it was not a factor, the CJEU ruling on comparators means authorities must show that the objective differences between the districts justify the differential treatment. They may struggle to justify denial of transport provision or electricity connection, or extortionate insurance or service charges.

The final important piece of the judgment is justification. The Court ruled that, even if race was no factor in CHEZ’s decisions, the practice was seen by others as effectively labelling a Roma community as electricity thieves, regardless of their payment history and behavior. In the context of anti-Roma stereotypes, the measure was seriously harmful. Agreeing with Ms Nikolova, the Court ruled that such a practice is incapable of justification. The community has a right under EU law to enjoy access to electricity “in conditions which are not of an offensive or stigmatising nature and which enable them to monitor their electricity consumption regularly”: para 128.

What happened to the notion of ‘discrimination by association’? The CJEU accepted Ms Nikolova’s argument that this is not part of EU law. It was the label attached by practitioners and academics to the Coleman judgment, but not one the Court had adopted. Like paragraph 50 of Coleman, which the court cites, the Nikolova judgment makes no mention of ‘by association’.  Dee Masters and Siȃn McKinley have argued that this approach makes indirect discrimination unworkable in certain situations. A coach reservation fee bears more heavily on people whose disability gives rise to a need to be accompanied. The concept of ‘association’ is needed, they argue, to limit the class of potential claimants to persons needed to accompany the disabled person. But this scenario is different from Nikolova, where the measure applied only to users in the majority-Roma districts, thereby putting all those users at a disadvantage when compared with users in a different district. In the coach scenario, the charging practice applies to all coach passengers. The differential disadvantage arises from the disability of the passenger, not their membership of the larger affected group. The passenger with a disability can complain about the negative impact of the fee for their seat and that for the companion. Indeed, the companion may also argue that the principle of equal treatment has been wronged as regards them. But a person who has neither a relevant disability nor is a companion of such a person is not affected by a differential impact on grounds of anyone’s disability. Ms Nikolova was – she had a disadvantage compared to users in non-Roma districts.

CHEZ has responded to the judgment by pointing to recent deaths by electrocution in other parts of Bulgaria of people attempting to make irregular connections: but it has not made meters inaccessible in these districts. EVN, a different Bulgarian electricity provider, contradicted CHEZ’s concerns about electricity theft. In the majority-Roma district in Stoliponovo – where EVN put the meters at a normal level some years ago - 95% of charges are paid. According to EVN, the real problem with electricity theft in Bulgaria is professionals and rich people running hotels, pubs and ski resorts.

The case now returns to the Sofia Administrative Court, where Ms Nikolova will seek an order that CHEZ restore the meters to their normal height for all users in her district.

*Simon Cox is a lawyer at the Open Society Justice Initiative and represented Ms Nikolova before the CJEU. The Open Society Justice Initiative works to make law a more effective tool against racial discrimination.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 20 

Photo: Bjorn Steinz, Open Society Foundation

Racial discrimination & collateral damage – Coleman revisited

 

Simon Cox

In Luxembourg yesterday, the Court of Justice Grand Chamber heard arguments that any person who suffers adverse consequences of a racially discriminatory decision is entitled to a remedy under EU law. In a case of anti-Roma discrimination brought by a non-Roma woman, the Court was asked to clarify its Coleman ruling, concerning who has the capacity to invoke EU discrimination law. Detailed questions from the Court showed a close interest in the legal and practical issues.

Case C-83/14 CEZ is a preliminary reference of ten questions under the European Union Directive 2000/43 on race discrimination. The case comes from the Sofia Administrative Court, in an appeal by CEZ, one of Bulgaria’s three electricity companies, from a decision of the Bulgarian National Anti-Discrimination Commission. This commission had a complaint from Ms Nikolova that CEZ unlawfully discriminated against her by putting the meter for the legal supply of electricity to her grocery shop on the top of a 7 metre high pole. CEZ had not singled Ms Nikolova out for this treatment. They had done this to every meter in the district of Gizdova, but nowhere else in her town of Dupnitsa. Unable regularly to inspect her meter, Ms Nikolova considered CEZ had inflated her electricity bill. Since the Gizdova is widely seen as a predominantly ‘Roma’ area, she complained that the district had been chosen for that reason by CEZ. The commission had received numerous such complaints that only Roma districts were subjected to being publicly stigmatised as too dishonest to have access to meters. Armed with material that CEZ had cited Roma ethnicity as a factor for its decision, the Anti-Discrimination Commission agreed with Ms Nikolova and upheld her case. In her case to the CJEU she pressed for an expansive reading of EU anti-discrimination law.

This is the CJEU’s first opportunity to rule on the application of the Race Equality Directive to the Roma, Europe’s most disadvantaged minority. A previous reference to the Court on similar issues (Belov) was inadmissible, although the Advocate-General’s opinion had considered the substance of the issues.

Yesterday, the CJEU Grand Chamber heard argument from CEZ, Ms Nikolova, the Bulgarian Government and the European Commission.

The central issue on which the parties divided was the extent of protection under the Directive. Ms Nikolova argued - as she had in her written submissions -  that Directive 2000/43 bars all discrimination ‘based on race or ethnic origin’ regardless of the actual race or ethnic origin of the victims. The purpose of this law is to eliminate all such discrimination: it does not require the victims or the complainant to have the same race or ethnic origin as the basis for a discriminatory decision. The Commission agreed, pointing to para 50 of the CJEU’s judgment in C-303/06 Coleman where discrimination ‘based on disability’ under Directive 2000/78 was found to include adverse action against an employee on account of her disabled son.

Counsel for CEZ argued that Coleman was a case of discrimination ‘by association’. Directive 2000/43 allows leeway to states to define this term. Ms Nikolova’s shop in Gizdova is not the link to Roma origin required by Bulgarian law. The case was different from Coleman. The Bulgarian Government agreed.

Judge Prechal, rapporteur in the case, invited Nikolova’s comment on she called the ‘restrictive’ Bulgarian definition. Nikolova took a maximalist position: ‘based on’ covers any adverse decision where actual, apparent or perceived origin was in fact taken into account by the decision-maker. Only this way could the Directive eliminate all racial discrimination.

Responding on the question of comparators, Nikolova argued that where only Roma neighbourhoods are subjected to adverse treatment, the burden of proof for direct discrimination shifts under Directive Article 8. Unless CEZ then prove race was not taken into account, there is no need to consider a hypothetical comparator: direct discrimination based on race had already been proved.

CEZ denied any racial motivation: the measures had been adopted due to the problem of illegal connections to the electricity supply. Illegally constructed dwellings cannot legally be connected so users connect illegally. The costs of changing meters would be passed on to customers. No judge could determine whether a measure stigmatises Roma communities, since the notion is too subjective.

Several judges questioned CEZ on their defence. Had CEZ considered adopting the smart meter solution of other Bulgarian companies? CEZ’s counsel was not familiar with the detail but smart meters are expensive. Judge Rodin pressed CEZ:

Rodin: How does CEZ decide whose meters to put out of reach?

CEZ: A technical decision based on their engineers’ assessment.

Rodin: Do the engineers know the payment record of individuals when they make this assessment?

CEZ: No, they look at the situation of the district.

Rodin: Can the electricity consumer appeal?

CEZ: No.

Judge Borg Barthet weighed in by asking whether only Roma districts have the meters on poles. CEZ’s Counsel didn’t know. Judge Lenaerts said he would make it easier:

Lenaerts: Does this happen in many districts?

CEZ: Define “many”.

Lenaerts: In how many districts have you done this?

CEZ: Ten or twenty.

The Court moved to replies. CEZ’s counsel was quick, arguing that CEZ needed flexibility. When Judge Lenaerts invited him to respond to the other parties, he declined.

Nikolova’s counsel replied asking for guidance to the national court on indirect discrimination. The comparator is other districts of Dupnitsa. Differences of illegal connection rates are relevant only to the objective justification stage. They are not relevant to the question of comparator, since that would preclude the Directive addressing grossly disparate consequences in treatment. CEZ say race was no factor in their decision but claim their relevant records have been destroyed. CEZ claim’s costs of change would be too high, but has not assessed them. CEZ confirm their practice is both compulsory - no appeal - and collective – applied to the whole district, not case by case. CEZ demand flexibility but deny that to Ms Nikolova. She cannot disprove the public sign that she is an illegal connector.

Advocate-General Kokott’s opinion will be issued 12 March.

The hearing began in the language of the case: Bulgarian. The CJEU President had refused Ms Nikolova’s request to plead in English as the language of her English lead counsel.  His co-counsel of the Sofia Bar therefore opened in Bulgarian. When questions began, Judge Lenaerts invited Ms Nikolova’s team to respond in English: and her English counsel pleaded the rest of her case.

Ms Nikolova is represented by the Open Society Justice Initiative through Simon Cox of the Bar of England and Wales, Yonko Grozev of the Sofia Bar, and Maxim Ferschtman of the Amsterdam Bar.

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 20

Photo: Bjorn Steinz, for the Open Society Foundation