Committee to a letter of 6 April 1995 addressed to the DRC in
which the Minister of Business Affairs (Erhvervsministeren)
expresses the view that a credit policy according to which no
credit is granted to persons unless they have lived in Denmark
for at least five years would be contrary to the discrimination
rules. It is the author's conclusion that the police did not at all
attempt to clarify with the bank the real reason behind the
requirement of citizenship.
8.4 Counsel states that, according to the State party, the
decisions of the Chief Constable and the State Prosecutor were
based on the fact that differentiation of treatment that pursues
a legitimate aim and respects the requirements of
proportionality is not prohibited discrimination. He argues,
however, that the authorities did not in fact examine whether a
legitimate aim was pursued by the bank and that in cases of
alleged discrimination the decision whether or not to initiate
proceedings must be taken after a thorough investigation of
the alleged cases of discrimination.
Examination of the merits
9.1 The Committee has considered the author's case in the light
of all the submissions and documentary evidence produced by
the parties, as required under article 14, paragraph 7 (a), of the
Convention and rule 95 of its rules of procedure. It bases its
findings on the following considerations.
9.2 Financial means are often needed to facilitate integration in
society. To have access to the credit market and be allowed to
apply for a financial loan on the same conditions as those
which are valid for the majority in the society is, therefore, an
important issue.
9.3 In the present case the author was refused a loan by a
Danish bank on the sole ground of his nonnDanish nationality
and was told that the nationality requirement was motivated
by the need to ensure that the loan was repaid. In the opinion
of the Committee, however, nationality is not the most
appropriate requisite when investigating a person's will or
capacity to reimburse a loan. The applicant's permanent
residence or the place where his employment, property or
family ties are to be found may be more relevant in this
context. A citizen may move abroad or have all his property in
another country and thus evade all attempts to enforce a claim
of repayment. Accordingly, the Committee finds that, on the