Sefic v. Denmark
From DADEL
Case Summary
Sefic v. Denmark
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Communication No. 32/2003 Denmark. 10/03/2005
CERD/C/66/D/32/2003
The petitioner, Mr. Emir Sefic, a Bosnian citizen residing in Denmark, claims a violation of his rights under articles 2, paragraph 1 (d), 5 and 6, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ("Convention”).
Contents |
Facts
The petitioner contacted Fair Insurance A/S to purchase insurance covering loss of and damage to his car, as well as third party liability insurance. In a conversation conducted in English he was told that they could not offer him insurance, as he did not speak Danish. Fair Insurance A/S explained that it wanted to ensure that the customer understands the conditions and rights connected to the insurance, and as a young and relatively small company it had limited resources to employ persons speaking languages other than Danish. Mr. Sefic, supported by the Documentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination (DRC), filed a complaint with the administrative agencies that monitor financial companies, which did not find a violation of good business practices. The DRC applied to the Commissioner of the Police of Copenhagen to investigate possible violations of the Danish law (under the Act Against Discrimination). The Commissioner declined to investigate, and the Regional Public Prosecutor of Copenhagen affirmed the decision.
Admissibility
The Committee found that the petitioner has exhausted domestic remedies. The complaint, filed with the police department and subsequently with the Public Prosecutor, alleged the commission of a criminal offence. The same objective could not be achieved by instituting a civil action, still available to the petitioner.
Merits
The Committee noted that the complaint was considered by both the police department and by the Public Prosecutor. The latter determined that the language requirement "was not based on the customer's race, ethnic origin or the like”. The Committee agreed. It held that the reasons provided by Fair Insurance A/S for the language requirement were reasonable and would not have warranted further investigation.
Decision
There was no violation of the Convention by the State party.