CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

MARTIN ŠOLC CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ In case of direct discrimination, a particular legislation, policy, or conduct consists of, or leads to, a difference in treatment of several groups that should be treated the same. The concept of direct discrimination is basically rooted in a traditional understanding of justice as maintaining a balance or proportion through adhering to the leading precept imposing the duty to, as H. L. A. Hart puts it, “treat like cases alike and different cases differently”. 52 However, this seemingly indisputable approach can ignore the context of a particular case and, therefore, lead to unjust outcomes. For example, the prohibition of dogs in a park or theatre is seemingly neutral, but it imposes a disproportionate burden on persons with disabilities who rely on their assistance dogs. 53 Furthermore, the said approach might arguably lead to cementing the results of past injustice. If a group of people were denied access to education, civil, political, or social rights etc., it is often assumed that it is not sufficient to abandon the directly discriminating practice, but it is also necessary to address the resulting state of inequality. 54 For these reasons, it is common to distinguish between formal and substantive equality. While formal equality is based on the prohibition of any classification and the mere rule of “treating like cases alike”, substantive equality consists of the absence of any factual subordination. 55 Substantive equality is inherently contextual. 56 In practice, it is reflected in the concept of indirect discrimination. 57 In the case of indirect discrimination, the prejudicial effect is based on an otherwise neutral cause. 58 Two sub-types of indirect discrimination can be identified. The first one is represented by the cases where a certain legal norm applies to all its addressees equally, but its scope is too broad and the norm leads to unequal effects on different groups of addressees. Here, the substantive inequality arises from the very fact that the norm is applied equally in formal terms. 59 The disturbed equality between the affected groups of persons can be restored by establishing a suitable exception to the general norm or its application. 52 HART, Herbert Lionel Adolphus. The Concept of Law. 2 nd edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1997, p. 159. 53 See BOUČKOVÁ, Pavla, HAVELKOVÁ, Barbara, KOLDINSKÁ, Kristina, KÜHNOVÁ, Eva, KÜHN, Zdeněk, WHELANOVÁ, Markéta. Antidiskriminační zákon. Komentář. [Anti-discrimination Act. The Commentary.] 2 nd edition. C. H. Beck, Praha 2016, p. 7. 54 See McCOLGAN, Aileen. Discrimination, Equality and the Law. (Human Rights Law in Perspective, Vol. 19.) Hart Publishing, Oxford 2014, pp. 21-22. 55 See ibid., pp. 20-23. 56 BOUČKOVÁ, Pavla, HAVELKOVÁ, Barbara, KOLDINSKÁ, Kristina, KÜHNOVÁ, Eva, KÜHN, Zdeněk, WHELANOVÁ, Markéta. Antidiskriminační zákon. Komentář. [Anti-discrimination Act. The Commentary.] 2 nd edition. C. H. Beck, Praha 2016, p. 7. 57 See KÜHN, Zdeněk. Diskriminace v teoretickém a srovnávacím kontextu. [Discrimination in Theoretical and Comparative Context.] Právní fórum. (2007, Vol. X, No. 4, Příloha [Annex]), pp. 64-65. 58 See BOBEK, Michal. Zákaz diskriminace (čl. 14 EÚLP a Protokol č. 12). [The Prohibition of Discrimination (Article 14 of the ECHR and the Protocol No. 12).] In KMEC, Jiří, KOSAŘ, David, KRATOCHVÍL, Jan, BOBEK, Michal. Evropská úmluva o lidských právech. Komentář. [The European Convention on Human Rights. The Commentary.] C. H. Beck, Praha 2012, p. 1229. See alsoHAVELKOVÁ, Barbara. Diskriminační důvody. Pohlaví. [Grounds of Discrimination. Sex.] In BOUČKOVÁ, Pavla, HAVELKOVÁ, Barbara, KOLDINSKÁ, Kristina, KÜHNOVÁ, Eva, KÜHN, Zdeněk, WHELANOVÁ, Markéta. Antidiskriminační zákon. Komentář. [Anti- discrimination Act. The Commentary.] 2 nd edition. C. H. Beck, Praha 2016, pp. 76-77, or ŠAMÁNEK, Jiří. Nepřímá diskriminace (typ 1). [Indirect Discrimination. Type 1.] In ŠAMÁNEK, Jiří (eds.). Antidiskriminační právo v judikatuře a praxi. [Anti-discrimination Law in Case Law and Practice.] C. H. Beck, Praha 2017, p. 55. 59 See KÜHN, Zdeněk. Diskriminace v teoretickém a srovnávacím kontextu. [Discrimination in Theoretical and Comparative Context.] Právní fórum. (2007, Vol. X, No. 4, Příloha [Annex]), p. 61.

290