Quereshi v. Denmark
From DADEL
Case Summary
Quereshi v. Denmark
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Communication No. 33/2003 : Denmark. 10/03/2005.
The petitioner, Kamal Quereshi, a Danish national current member of the State party's parliament (Folketinget) for the Socialist Peoples Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti), alleges to be the victim of a violation by Denmark of articles 2, subparagraph 1(d), 4 and 6 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ("Convention”).
Contents |
Facts
Derogatory comments against Muslims were allegedly made at the Progressive Party's (Fremskridtspartiet) annual meeting, which was broadcast on the State television. In particular, Vagd Andreasen said that "The State has given the foreigners work. They work in our slaughterhouses where they can easily poison our food and endanger the agricultural exports”. The Documentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination (DRC) filed complaints against a number of members of the Progressive Party and the Party itself with the Varde police, alleging that they violated section 266(b)(1) and (2) of the Danish Criminal Code by threatening, insulting or degrading a group of persons on account of their race and ethnic origin. The Varde Police Chief Constable forwarded cases to the Regional Public Prosecutor recommending prosecution of some charges and dismissal of others due to the lack of evidence. The Director of Public Prosecution found that the concept of "foreigners" employed by Mr. Andreasen was too vague to be the basis of prosecution. On appeal, the Ministry of Justice decided that Mr. Quereshi did not have "an essential, direct and individual interest in the case" and thus lacked standing to bring the complaint.
Admissibility
Denmark argued that judicial review of the Ministry's decisions in the form of a constitutional application remained available. The Committee, however, pointed out that the petitioner pursued his complaint through four levels of administrative decision-making with respect to facts which were in the public domain from the outset and which did not require complex investigation. In those circumstances, the application of further remedies in the courts would be unreasonably prolonged, and hence local remedies did not have to be exhausted.
Merits
The Committee determined that a general reference to foreigners did not single out a group of persons, contrary to article 1 of the Convention, on the basis of a specific race, ethnicity, color, descent or national or ethnic origin. In the 1980 decision referred to by the petitioner, the High Court of Eastern Denmark found that the designation "guest worker" pointed to "a group of persons”, within the meaning of section 266(b). The Court emphasized, however, that according to a general understanding, that expression designated a person living in Denmark of South European, Asian or African origin, particularly Yugoslavs, Turks or Pakistanis. Unlike in the present case, these were identifiable groups of people.
Decision
There was no violation of the Convention