41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 52 Mr. Rupert Althammer et al. v Austria, supra 39, para. 10.2. Kelly v the United Kingdom (Application No. 30054/96) [2001] ECtHR, 4 May 2001. Ibid., para. 146. Ibid., para. 148. Ibid. D.H. and Others v The Czech Republic (Application No. 57325/00) [2006] 43 EHRR 41, para. 48. Ibid., para. 49. Ibid. Compare this finding with the House of Lords decision in Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] AC 548. D.H. and Others v The Czech Republic (Application No. 57325/00) [2008] 47 EHRR 3. Ibid., para. 183. Ibid., para. 184. See for example, Case 170/84, Bilka-Kaufhaus [1986] IRLR 317; Case 43/75, Gabrielle Defrenne v Société Anonyme Belge de Navigation Aérienne Sabena [1976] ECR 455; Joined Cases C-231/06, 232/06 and 233/06, Office national des pensions v Emilienne Jonkman, Hélène Vercheval and Noëlle Permesaen v Office national des pensions [2007] ECR I-5149. Case C 152/73, Sotgiu, [1974] ECR 153; Case 39/86 Sylvie Lair v Universitat Hannover [1988] ECR 3161; Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvainla-Neuve [2001] ECR I-6193; Case C-209/03 R (on the application of Danny Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills [2005] ECR I-2119. D.H. and Others v The Czech Republic, supra 50, para. 209. Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina, supra 6. HRC, Waldman v Canada, supra 16. Ibid., para. 10(6). Ibid., para. 10.4. In contrast, the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on freedom of association of religious organizations is more supportive of a minority group’s claims: Serif v Greece (Application No. 38178/97) [1999] 31 EHRR 561; Hassan and Chaush v Bulgaria (Application No. 30985/96) [2000] 24 EHRR 55; Case of Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others v Moldova, (Application No. 45701/99), Judgment of 13 December 2001; Case of Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v Bulgaria (Application No. 39023/97), Judgment of 16 December 2004; Case of the Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v Russia (Application No. 72881/01), Judgment of 5 October 2006. Thlimmenos v Greece, supra 22. Ibid., para. 42. Ibid., para. 44. CERD, General Recommendation No. 32: The meaning and scope of special measures in the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 75th session, August 2009, para. 7. Şahin v Turkey (Application No. 44774/98) Grand Chamber (2007) 44 EHRR 5; Şahin v Turkey (Application No. 44774/98) (2005) 41 EHRR 8. Şahin v Turkey (Application No. 44774/98) (2005) 41 EHRR 8, para. 99. Ibid., para. 106. Karaduman v Turkey (Application No. 16278/90) (1993) 74 DR 93. Dahlab v Switzerland (Application No. 42393/98) Inadmissibility Decision of 15 February 2001. Compare to the German headscarf case in Bundesverfassungsgericht (BverfGE), 2 BverfGE 1436/02, Judgment of 24 Sept. 2003. Kokkinakis v Greece (A/260-A) [1994] 17 EHRR 397. Lariss v Greece [1998] EHRR 329. Delgado Paez v Colombia (Communication No. 195, 1985) [1990] HRC, 12 July 1990. 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 Karaduman v Turkey (1993) 74 DR 93, supra 68. Dahlab v Switzerland, supra 69. Emine Araç v Turkey, No. 9907/02, decision of 19 September 2006. Şefika Köse and 93 others v Turkey, No. 26625/02, decision of 24 January 2006. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, State of human rights and democracy in Europe, Doc. 11217, 30 March 2007, para. 62. Kurtulmuş v Turkey (Application No. 65500/01), decision of 24 January 2006. Dogru v France (Application No. 27058/05), ECHR, 4 December 2008. Kervanci v France (Application No. 31645/04), ECHR, 4 December 2008. Dogru v France, supra 80, para. 8. Ibid., para. 14. Şahin v Turkey (Application No. 44774/98) Grand Chamber (2007) 44 EHHR 5; Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v Turkey (Application Nos 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98), Judgment of 13 February 2003; X v the United Kingdom (Application No. 7992/77), (1978) 14 DR 234; Phull v France (dec.) (Application No. 35753/03), Judgment of 11 January 2005; El Morsli v France (Application No. 15585/06), inadmissibility decision of 4 March 2008; Karaduman v Turkey, supra 68; Dahlab v Switzerland, supra 69; Şefika Köse and 93 others v Turkey, (Application No. 26625/02), inadmissibility decision of 24 January 2006. Dogru v France, supra 80, paras 63, 71, 72, 75 and 77. Ibid., para. 72. Aktas v France (Application No. 43563/08). Bayrak v France (Application No. 14308/08). Gamaleddyn v France (Application No. 18527/08). Ghazal v France (Application No. 29134/08). See also inadmissibility decisions in J. Singh v France, No. 25463/08 and R. Singh v France, No. 27561/08, where boys were banned from a school for wearing a ‘keski’, an underturban worn by Sikhs. Aktas v France, supra 87, para. 4. Chapman v. UK (Application No. 27238/95) ECHR, 18 January 2001 (the right to one’s own way of life); ECmHR, Lindsay and Others v the United Kingdom (Application 8364/78), Decision of 8 March 1979 (legitimacy of having different election systems within one state to protect the participation right of minorities); Sidiropoulos and Others v Greece (Application No. 26695/95), Judgment of 10 July 1998 (the freedom of association to protect separate identity of a minority group); Cyprus v Turkey (2002), 35 EHRR 30 (educational rights of minorities). Hudoyberganova v Uzbekistan (931/2000) UN HRC 19 BHRC 581, 18 January 2005. Ibid., para. 6.2. HRC, General Comment No. 22, para. 5. Hudoyberganova v Uzbekistan, para. 6.2. Nachova v Bulgaria (Application Nos 43577/98 and 43579/98) [2004] 39 EHRR 37. Nachova v Bulgaria (Application Nos 43577/98 and 43579/98) [2006] Grand Chamber, 42 EHRR 43, para. 89, see also Chamber’s decision in ibid., Nachova v Bulgaria, para. 105, supra 98. Nachova v Bulgaria, supra 98, paras 108 and 109. Ibid., para. 157. Ibid., para. 170. Ibid., para. 171. Ibid., paras 172–3. Nachova v Bulgaria, supra 99, para. 157. Ibid. However, in Stoica v Romania (Application No 42722/02) Judgment of 4 March 2008, the ECtHR appeared to concede the shift of the burden of proof to the state, even though the facts of the case are related to racially-motivated violence. MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE