Albania / Commissioner for protection against discrimination / Decision No. 153, dated 24. 05. 2024

Country

Albania

Title

Albania / Commissioner for protection against discrimination / Decision
No. 153, dated 24. 05. 2024

View full case

Year

2024

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Friday, May 24, 2024

Incident(s) concerned/related

Discrimination

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Human Rights Body

Court/Body

Commissioner for Protection from Discrimination

Key facts of the case

The case involves A.D., a Specialist for Citizen Information at Administrative Unit No. 8, Tirana Municipality, who filed a complaint against Administrator D.D. for religious discrimination. A.D. had been allowed to attend Friday prayers (12:30-14:00) for years, but in September 2023, D.D. imposed restrictions, requiring prior approval from direct supervisors. After A.D. failed to inform the correct superior, D.D. penalized him by deducting a workday. A.D. claimed this was unfair and discriminatory. The Commissioner for Protection from Discrimination (KMD) investigated the case, confirming that Friday prayers must be performed in a mosque and that refusal to allow this could constitute religious discrimination.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Commissioner for Protection from Discrimination (KMD) evaluated whether A.D. faced unequal treatment based on his religious practice. A.D. had attended Friday prayers for years with prior approval, but new regulations required direct supervisor notification. When A.D. failed to inform the correct superior, his absence was penalized. KMD considered whether this was a neutral workplace rule or a discriminatory restriction. Testimony from the Muslim Community confirmed Friday prayers must be performed in a mosque, and work should not prevent it. KMD found that the imposed restriction and penalty could constitute indirect religious discrimination.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The case clarifies key issues regarding religious freedom in the workplace and indirect discrimination. It highlights that workplace policies requiring prior approval for absence must not disproportionately restrict religious practices. The interpretation of "reasonable accommodation" is also examined, questioning whether employers must adjust rules to allow religious observance. Additionally, the case reaffirms that Friday prayers must be performed in a mosque, making refusal to permit absence a potential violation of religious rights under anti-discrimination laws.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The Commissioner for Protection from Discrimination (KMD) found that the imposed restriction and penalty on A.D. could constitute indirect religious discrimination. As a result, KMD likely recommended that the employer adjust workplace policies to accommodate religious practices while maintaining operational efficiency. Key Consequences & Implications: Employers must balance workplace rules with religious freedoms. Religious observance should not be unfairly restricted under general workplace policies. The case strengthens protections against religious discrimination in Albania’s employment sector.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"Në këndvështrimin tonë, moslejimi i punonjësve të kryejnë këtë ritual është shkelje e lirisë fetare dhe të ndërgjegjes, që nuk i përgjigjet aspak nivelit ku vendet dhe shoqëritë demokratike janë në drejtim të respektimit të lirive dhe të drejtave themelore të njeriut." (Komuniteti Mysliman i Shqipërisë, përgjigje për KMD, 22.04.2024). "In our view, not allowing employees to perform this ritual is a violation of religious freedom and conscience, which does not align with the level of respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms in democratic societies." (Muslim Community of Albania, response to KMD, 22.04.2024).

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.