CJEU Case C-417/23 / Judgment

Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab Afdeling Schackenborgvænge and Others v MV and Others
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Grand Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
18/12/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2025:1017
  • CJEU Case C-417/23 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin – Directive 2000/43/EC – Concepts of ‘ethnic origin’, ‘direct discrimination’ and ‘indirect discrimination’ – National legislation requiring the adoption of development plans designed to reduce the percentage of public family housing units in certain residential areas – Identification of those areas according to the proportion of ‘immigrants from non-Western countries and their descendants’ – Whether justified – Social cohesion and integration – Housing policy – Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to respect for the home – Proportionality

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

    Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin

    must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation laying down an obligation to adopt development plans designed to reduce the percentage of public family housing units in residential areas that are characterised, inter alia, by the fact that, during the last five years, the proportion of ‘immigrants from non-Western countries and their descendants’ residing in those areas has exceeded 50%:

    - constitutes direct discrimination, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a), in so far as it is established that the adoption of that national legislation is based on the ethnic origin of the majority of the inhabitants of those residential areas and that the effect of that national legislation is that all the inhabitants of those areas are treated less favourably than the inhabitants of residential areas that are comparable, but in which the proportion of ‘immigrants from non-Western countries and their descendants’ has not exceeded 50%;

    - constitutes indirect discrimination, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b), in so far as it is established, first, that that national legislation, although ostensibly formulated or applied in a neutral manner, that is to say, having regard to factors other than that of ethnic origin, has the effect of placing persons belonging to certain ethnic groups at a particular disadvantage and, second, that that national legislation does not, for the purpose of attaining the overriding objective in the public interest which it pursues, comply with the principle of proportionality.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    78. As regards, in the second place, the context of the concept of ‘ethnic origin’ within the meaning of Directive 2000/43 and, in particular, Article 2 thereof, it must be borne in mind, first, that, as has already been noted in paragraph 52 of the present judgment, that directive gives specific expression, in its field of application, to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of racial and ethnic origin enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter. According to the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17), Article 21(1) thereof draws on, inter alia, Article 14 ECHR and, in so far as it corresponds with the latter, applies in compliance with it.

    ...

    121. It is important to emphasise that the right to respect for the home is a fundamental right guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter, which contains rights corresponding to those guaranteed in Article 8(1) ECHR and which must therefore, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, be given the same meaning and scope as the latter (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2024, Mirin, C‑4/23, EU:C:2024:845, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    156. Third, even though the legislation at issue in the main proceedings may, in principle, be regarded as coming within an area in which the Member States enjoy broad discretion, the fact remains that the Member States must comply with the prohibition of all discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter and given specific expression by Directive 2000/43.

    ...

    166. In that respect, it must be borne in mind, as stated in paragraph 121 of the present judgment, that the right to respect for the home is a fundamental right guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter.

    ...

    168. However, it must be pointed out that objectives of general interest, such as social cohesion and integration, may not be pursued by a national measure without having regard to the fact that they must be reconciled with the fundamental rights and principles affected by that measure, as set out in the Treaties and the Charter, by properly balancing those objectives of general interest against the rights and principles at issue, in order to ensure that the disadvantages caused by that measure are not disproportionate to the objectives pursued. Thus, the question whether a limitation of the rights guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter may be justified must be assessed by measuring the seriousness of the interference which such a limitation entails and by verifying that the importance of the objectives of general interest pursued by that limitation is proportionate to that seriousness (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 July 2025, INTERZERO and Others, C‑254/23, EU:C:2025:569, paragraph 109 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    170. As is apparent from paragraphs 121 and 122 of the present judgment, the loss of one’s home is a most extreme form of interference with the right to respect for the home, within the meaning of Article 7 of the Charter, and places the person concerned and his or her family in a particularly vulnerable position.

    171. It is also apparent from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights relating to Article 8 ECHR, paragraph 1 of which provides for rights equivalent to those guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter, first of all, that, although, in spheres involving the application of social or economic policies, including as regards housing, the national authorities have considerable latitude, the discretion thus left to those authorities will tend to be narrower where the right at stake is crucial to the individual’s effective enjoyment of fundamental or ‘intimate’ rights. This is the case in particular for Article 8 rights, which are rights of central importance to the individual’s identity, self-determination, physical and moral integrity, maintenance of relationships with others and a settled and secure place in the community (ECtHR, 17 October 2013, Winterstein and Others v. France, CE:ECHR:2013:1017JUD002701307, § 148).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)