DH and Others v Czech Republic

In brief

The applicants, Roma children placed in special schools at disproportionate rates, won: the Grand Chamber held, by thirteen votes to four, that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of each applicant, and unanimously dismissed the Government's preliminary objection (paras 123, 210). The Grand Chamber held that Article 14 ECHR (read with Protocol 1, Article 2) is engaged not only by direct discrimination but by neutral measures producing disproportionate impact on a protected group. It stated as a general rule that statistics which appear reliable and significant on critical examination are sufficient prima facie evidence of indirect discrimination, and that the burden then shifts to the State to justify (paras 188–189, 195). The Court had already relied on statistics and shifted the burden in earlier sex-discrimination cases and had already accepted that a neutral measure with disproportionate effects may be discriminatory (paras 180, 184, 187); what the Grand Chamber added was a general statement of the rule, moving away from an earlier statement that statistics alone could not disclose a discriminatory practice, and its application to ethnic origin in education. Foundational ECHR indirect-discrimination authority.

Key provisions

• Article 14 ECHR + Protocol 1 Art 2 — Statistical disparate impact engages Article 14 : A facially-neutral measure that produces disproportionate adverse impact on a protected group can found a discrimination claim under Article 14, even without proof of discriminatory intent. Statistical evidence of disparate impact can shift the burden to the State to justify the measure.

When relevant

Cases where the practice is constructing an indirect-discrimination argument and ECHR weight is required; useful where domestic s.19 EA2010 analysis (Essop / Homer) needs Convention reinforcement; particularly for cases involving group-level statistical disparity.