France / CERD / C / 107 / D / 66 / 2018
Country
France
Year
2022
Decision/ruling/judgment date
Tuesday, August 30, 2022
Incident(s) concerned/related
Discrimination
Related Bias motivation
Racial or ethnic origin
Groups affected
People of African descent
Court/Body type
UN Committee
Court/Body
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Key facts of the case
Stanislas Breleur, a French national from Martinique, field a complaint against France for racial discrimination during his employment at Renault (1971 - 2003). Despite his qualifications, his career progression was hindered compared to his European colleagues. The Versailles Court of Appeal in 2008 awarded him damages and retroactively reclassified his salary, but Renault refused to issue the necessary employment certificate, affecting his pension. Breleur claimed the state failed to enforce the reclassification and provide full redress. France argued that the discrimination was recognized and compensated, and legal remedies were provided.
Main reasoning/argumentation
The Committee considered that the petitioner's claims regarding racial discrimination are admissible only under article 6 of the Convention. It noted that the State party's legal system, including its Constitution, Labour Code, and Criminal Code, provides protection against racial discrimination. The Versailles Court of Appeal recognized the discrimination and ordered compensation. However, the Committee found no evidence that the State party failed to act under articles 2,3,4 and 5. Drawing parallels with the Kotor v. France case, the Committee concludes that the State party violated article 6 of the Convention, recommending full reparation, including reclassification for victims of racial 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 related to racial discrimination in employment, emphasising the right to equality and the burden of proof reversal in such cases. The Committee highlighted that the State party must ensure access to justice and full reparation for victims, as seen in the petitioner's successful legal action against Renault. It interpreted Article 6 of the Convention, reinforcing the right to effective remedies for discrimination victims, and stressed the importance of reclassification and adequate compensation. The case highlights the role of national courts in upholding these principles.
Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case
The Committee's ruling highlights the importance of effective remedies under article 6 of the Convention, ensuring victims of racial discrimination receive adequate reparation. In this case , the State party violated Article 6 by not fully implementing the Versailles Court's ruling. The petitioner's compensation was paid, but issues like reclassification and employment certificates remained unresolved. The Committee called the State Party for information on the measures taken within 90 days.
Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details
"The Committee notes the similarity between the present communication and Kotor v. France, in respect of which the Committee issued an Opinion on 25 November 2021, at its 105th session. In both cases, the petitioners received similar treatment from their employer. In the French justice system, their cases were decided by the same courts, on the same dates and using the same reasoning. Both petitioners were represented by the same counsel. Both cases therefore raise the same issues under the Convention.
Against this backdrop, the Committee considers that, for the same reasons as those set out in its Opinion in respect of Kotor v. France, the State party has violated article 6 of the Convention."
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.