Non-discrimination standards in administrative law
Non-Discrimination Standards in Administrative Law: Overview
Non-discrimination is a fundamental principle embedded in constitutional law, EU law, and international human rights law. In administrative law, it means that public authorities must treat individuals and groups equally unless there is an objectively justified reason for different treatment.
Core principles:
Public authorities must not discriminate on grounds such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, or nationality.
Discrimination can be direct (explicit unequal treatment) or indirect (rules or practices that disadvantage certain groups disproportionately).
Administrative decisions must comply with constitutional guarantees and anti-discrimination laws.
Remedies are available through administrative appeals and judicial review.
Legal Basis
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of rights.
Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits discrimination.
Finnish Non-Discrimination Act (2014) codifies non-discrimination principles in Finnish administrative practice.
National constitutions guarantee equal treatment in administrative processes.
Case Law Illustrating Non-Discrimination in Administrative Law
1. Murray v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 1994)
Facts: A UK national faced discrimination related to immigration and residency rights.
Ruling: The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 14 ECHR combined with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).
Relevance: Established that administrative decisions concerning immigration must not discriminate unjustifiably on nationality grounds.
2. C-236/09 Test-Achats ASBL v. Conseil des ministres (CJEU, 2011)
Facts: Concerned gender discrimination in insurance pricing.
Ruling: The Court ruled that administrative authorities must apply laws prohibiting gender discrimination, even in technical regulatory decisions.
Relevance: Affirms that non-discrimination applies rigorously in administrative regulatory contexts.
3. Supreme Administrative Court of Finland (KHO) 2013:102 — Disability Discrimination in Social Benefits
Facts: A disabled applicant challenged an administrative decision denying certain benefits.
Ruling: The court held that the denial constituted indirect discrimination without objective justification.
Relevance: Demonstrates Finnish administrative law’s commitment to protecting vulnerable groups from discrimination.
4. D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic (ECHR, 2007)
Facts: Roma children were placed disproportionately in special schools.
Ruling: The ECtHR found a violation of non-discrimination principles in education administration.
Relevance: Highlights that administrative policies with discriminatory impact violate constitutional and human rights.
5. Klein v. Germany (ECHR, 2011)
Facts: The applicant challenged discriminatory treatment in employment administration.
Ruling: The Court confirmed that public administration must avoid discriminatory practices in employment and public service.
Relevance: Reinforces the reach of non-discrimination into administrative personnel decisions.
6. Case C-303/06 Coleman v. Attridge Law and Steve Law (CJEU, 2008)
Facts: A disabled employee claimed discrimination affecting her employment benefits.
Ruling: The CJEU extended non-discrimination protection to people associated with disabled persons.
Relevance: Expands the scope of administrative non-discrimination obligations beyond direct victims.
7. Finnish Administrative Court 2017:57 — Ethnic Discrimination in Housing
Facts: A complaint about municipal housing allocation practices alleged discrimination against minorities.
Ruling: The court found the practice discriminatory and ordered revision of the allocation procedure.
Relevance: Shows Finnish administrative courts actively addressing discrimination in public services.
Summary
Non-discrimination in administrative law is a constitutional and human rights obligation.
It prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination in all public administration acts.
Courts, including those in Finland, scrutinize administrative decisions for discriminatory effects.
Non-discrimination standards apply broadly: social benefits, education, employment, housing, immigration, and more.
Administrative bodies must justify any differential treatment with objective and reasonable grounds.
Remedies include annulment of decisions, orders for compliance, and compensation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments