|
BEFORE: |
CHAIRMAN: |
Michael E. Sherifis (Cyprus) |
VICE-CHAIRMEN: |
François
Lonsény Fall (Guinea), Yuri A. Reshetov (Russia), Luis Valencia
Rodriguez (Ecuador) |
RAPPORTEUR: |
Marc
Bossuyt (Belgium) |
MEMBERS: |
Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr (Egypt), Gabriele Britz (Germany), Ion Diaconu
(Romania), Régis De Gouttes (France), Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill
(South Africa), Carlos Lechuga Hevia (Cuba), Gay Mcdougall (United
States), Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai (India), Agha Shahi (Pakistan),
Tang Chengyuan (China), Patrick Thornberry (United Kingdom), Mario
Jorge Yutzis (Argentina)
All members of the Committee attended the fifty-eighth and
fifty-ninth sessions. |
Applicant: |
D.S. |
Alleged
Victim: |
D.S. |
Respondent: |
Sweden |
|
|
Perm.
Link: |
http://www.worldcourts.com/cerd/eng/decisions/2001.08.10_DS_v_Sweden_2.htm |
Citation: |
D.S. v. Sweden 2, Comm. 14/1998, U.N. Doc.
A/56/18, at 151 (2001) |
Publication: |
Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, U.N. GAOR,
56th Sess., Supp. No. 18,
U.N. Doc. A/56/18, Annex III, sect. B, at 151 (Aug.
17, 2001) |
|
|
|
The Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, established under article 8 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination,
Meeting on 10 August 2001,
Adopts the following:
Decision on Admissibility
1. The petitioner (initial submission dated 9 July 2001) is D. S., a Swedish
citizen of Czechoslovak origin, born in 1947, currently residing in Solna,
Sweden. She claims to be a victim of violations by Sweden of articles 2,
paragraph 2, 5 (e) (i) and 6 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The petitioner is not
represented by counsel.
The Facts as Submitted by the Petitioner:
2.1 On 30 November 1999, the petitioner applied for a position as 'an
investigator' at Ungdomstyrelsen in Stockholm. This organisation carries
out, among other things, investigative studies at the request of the
Government or on its own initiative, on the conditions of life of young
people. The vacancy announcement said that it was looking for two new staff
members and that the requirements were a university degree in social
science, experience of public investigative work, knowledge of the
methodology of investigation, English, and experience using statistical
material. Experience in research work and in development, follow-up and
evaluation were also required. Good knowledge of oral and written Swedish
and ability to co-operate and work independently were also prerequisites for
the posts.
2.2 Ungdomstyrelsen decided to appoint A.K, I.A, and S.Z to the posts. It
appears that a third post was also made available after the announcement. On
6 March 2000, the petitioner appealed the decision to the Government
claiming that she had been discriminated against.
2.3 On 6 July 2000, the Government rejected the petitioner's appeal. The
Government did not give reasons for the decision. The petitioner appealed
against this decision as well and this appeal was similarly dismissed, on
the ground that the Government's decision, of 6 July 2000, could not be
appealed and that there was no other reason to re-examine the petitioner's
appeal.
2.4 The petitioner also filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against Ethnic
Discrimination who refused to take any action in her case, as he claimed
that it had no merits. The Ombudsman stated that Ungdomstyrelsen chose
individuals for the post on the basis of their education, and professional
experience and saw no reason to question the employer's judgement. The
petitioner states that she has not brought the case to the District Court as
she claims that the new law against ethnic discrimination does not apply to
individuals who allege discrimination at the recruitment stage, and even if
it were applicable she could not afford to do so.
The Complaint:
3. The petitioner claims that she has been discriminated against by Sweden
on the basis of her national origin and her status as an immigrant, in the
refusal by Ungdomstyrelsen to offer her a job. In this context, she objects
to the Ungdomstyrelsen's decision to offer the jobs in question to A.K, I.A,
and S.Z, all of Swedish origin, who she claims are less qualified than she
for the post.
Issues and Proceedings Before the Committee:
4.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee
on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination must decide,
pursuant to article 14, paragraph 7(a), of the Convention, whether or not
the current communication is admissible.
4.2 The Committee notes that, although the petitioner was aware that she
could have challenged the decision in the District Court not to appoint her
to the vacant post, she did not do so, as she believes that the legislation
is deficient and claims that she could not afford to take such an action.
4.3 The Committee concludes that, notwithstanding the reservations that the
petitioner might have regarding the effectiveness of the current legislation
to prevent racial discrimination in the labour market, it was incumbent upon
her to pursue the remedies available, including a complaint before the
District Court. The Committee recalls that doubts about the effectiveness of
such remedies, does not absolve an petitioner from pursuing them. With
respect to the petitioner's claim that she could not issue proceedings in
the District Court due to lack of funds, the Committee notes that the
petitioner has provided no further information in this regard and therefore
cannot conclude that the expenses involved would have been a grave
impediment excusing her from the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies.
4.4 In light of the above, the Committee considers that the petitioner has
failed to meet the requirements of article 14, paragraph 7 (a), of the
Convention.
5. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination therefore
decides:
(a) That the communication is inadmissible;
(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the petitioner and, for
information, to the State party.
|
|