France / CERD / C / 89 / D / 52 / 2012

Country

France

Title

France / CERD / C / 89 / D / 52 / 2012

View full case

Year

2016

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Wednesday, October 05, 2016

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

A French national of African origin, was hired by Renault in 1975. He claimed facing discriminatory practices starting in 1982 when he sought a management position. Despite his qualifications, Renault would have obstructed his career advancement, subjected him to racist remarks, and pressured him to renounce his French nationality. In 1986, he went on a hunger strike, leading to an agreement with Renault. However, he claimed continued discrimination and sidelining in his career. In 2003, he sued Renault for racial discrimination. The Paris Labour Tribunal awarded him damages, but the Paris Court of Appeal overturned the decision, finding no evidence of discrimination. The Court of Cassation later declared his request for review inadmissible.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Committee reviewed the case and noted that the petitioner argued the employer should prove it did not use illegitimate criteria for unequal treatment. The Committee emphasized that victims of racial discrimination do not need to show discriminatory intent. The Court of Appeal's requirement for the petitioner to prove discriminatory intent was against the Convention and national law on reversing the burden of proof. This misapplication violated the petitioner's right to an effective remedy under articles 2 and 6. The Committee recommended improving judicial procedures and disseminating information about remedies for racial discrimination victims.

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 ruling emphasized that in racial discrimination cases, the burden of proof should be on the employer to demonstrate that their actions were not discriminatory, rather than on the victim to prove discriminatory intent. The latter, instead only need to prove a discriminatory effect, not intent.

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

The Committee found the petitioners general allegations under article 3 inadmissible due to lack of evidence. However, it noted that the Paris Court of Appeal wrongly required him to prove discriminatory intent, contrary to the Convention and national law on reversing the burden of proof. This misapplication violated his right to an effective remedy under articles 2 and 6. The Committee recommended that France ensure proper application of the burden of proof principle.

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

"The Committee is of the view that the persistence of the courts, in particular the Court of Appeal, in requiring the petitioner to prove discriminatory intent runs counter to the Convention’s prohibition against any and all behaviour that has a discriminatory effect and counter to the procedure for the reversal of the burden of proof provided in article L-1134-1 (formerly article L.122-45) of the Labour Code. As it was the State party itself that adopted this procedure, the fact that it is not applying the procedure correctly constitutes a violation of the petitioner’s right to an effective remedy. The Committee therefore finds that the petitioner’s rights under articles 2 and 6 of the Convention have been violated."

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.