North Macedonia / Commission on Prevention and Protection Against Discrimination / 08-264/87

Country

North Macedonia

Title

North Macedonia / Commission on Prevention and Protection Against Discrimination / 08-264/87

View full case

Year

2023

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Wednesday, April 12, 2023

Incident(s) concerned/related

Discrimination

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Human Rights Body

Court/Body

Commission on Prevention and Protection Against Discrimination

Key facts of the case

A muslim woman filed a complaint stating that she and her colleagues were denied entry in a bar/restaurant under the pretense of a private event. A later inquiry suggested that the refusal was due to the complainant wearing a hijab. Further testimonies confirmed a pattern of discrimination which contributed as an additional evidence with the Commission on Prevention and Protection Against Discrimination to rule that the complainant was faced with discrimination.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Commission determined that the restaurant/bar's actions constituted direct intersectional discrimination (Article 13, Law on Prevention and Protection against Discrimination), on the grounds of gender and religion related to Article 5 from the Law on Prevention and Protection Against Discrimination. The decision was based on witness statements and past incidents, confirming a discriminatory pattern. The Commission ruled that denying access due to religious attire violates the right to equal access to public goods and services and recommended the restaurant/bar ensure non-discriminatory service in the future or face misdemeanor proceeding in court.

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 Commission addressed several key issues in this case. It emphasized the concept of intersectional discrimination, recognizing that the complainant was treated unfairly based on both gender and religion. The ruling reinforced the principle that access to public goods and services must not be restricted on discriminatory grounds. A significant point was the burden of proof, as the decision relied on witness testimonies and past incidents to establish a pattern of exclusion.

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

The Commission found that the bar/restaurant committed direct intersectional discrimination based on gender and religion and issued a recommendation for it to stop discriminatory practices and ensure equal access to its services. No immediate sanctions were imposed, but the Commission warned that failure to comply would lead to misdemeanor proceedings.

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

"На самиот влез од локалот им било посочено дека има приватна забава и поради тоа нема да бидат услужени. Наведено е дека по заминувањето од кафулето, една од колешките исконтактирала со лице од кое добила информација дека такво постапување на персоналот на локалот било поради шамијата која ја носела подносителката." "At the entrance of the venue, they were informed that a private event was taking place and that they would not be served. It was later stated that after leaving the bar, one of the colleagues contacted someone who confirmed that the staff’s actions were due to the complainant wearing a hijab."

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.