Our client, a successful roma businessman entered the espresso bar part of a non-stop shop with his brother and brother-in-law – his business partners – to celebrate a deal completed on that day. His two minor children were with him. They ordered three orange juices and a hot chocolate from the owner behind the counter while one of them wanted to play on the slot machine in the shop. They placed their order with the owner three times yet he never reacted. Instead, he told them to take their money out of the slot machine and leave. As the family insisted on getting the drinks they have ordered, the owner told them that this place was not meant for romas, so they will not drink anything there. He told them in his own shop he will decide who to serve. Finally, he ordered them to get out; otherwise he will get his gun, because he would have to shoot them.
Seeing the bad situation, our plaintiff called the local authority from the premises and asked for help regarding what to do if the owner does not want to serve them. The clerk of the local government advised them to ask for the book of complaints, but the owner denied giving it to them. After this our client informed the police of the situation and asked them to come to the scene. Although the atmosphere was already tense, the family tried to remain calm to avoid even the slightest hint of atrocity. The policemen on the scene recommended going down to the police station where a statement was prepared.
The manner of the owner offended all of them deeply. Our client was especially hurt since this humiliating incident happened in front of his two young children. The man, who was considered a prestigious businessman in the settlement, felt that his fatherly authority had also been damaged. The children were mentally affected by the incident, especially the younger one, who was so frightened by the threat of a weapon that he became sick at home.
In this case several legal opportunities were open with respect to legal redress, because – as we have already mentioned this – we could have initiated trial proceedings as representatives of the plaintiffs, or we could have turned to either the consumer protection inspectorates or the Equal Treatment Authority. However, when choosing the appropriate legal forum, the main point is what the plaintiff wants, how he sees the infringement of his rights best compensated. Although we would have liked to start a lawsuit, where we would have had the opportunity to demand compensation for non-pecuniary damages of our clients because of the discriminative behaviour that hurt their human dignity, but our clients informed us that they wish to receive no material compensation. They told us that they are prosperous businessmen and don’t want to “get rich” this way. Their only goal was for the shop owner to be sanctioned to the extent, which will keep him from committing similar infringement of rights with other guests of roma origin. Taking the interest of the plaintiffs into consideration we initiated the proceedings of the Equal Treatment Authority.
Considering that no substantial decision has been made in this case as yet, in our study we can “only” introduce the evidence supplied by the parties. We could easily meet the requirement of proving our claim, as the fact that our clients were of roma origin and that they were not served required no real proof. To our plea to the authority we attached the police report that was written by the policemen arriving at the scene and that contained a recap of the events by our clients and by the employees of the espresso bar.
During the course of the procedure the owner of the shop made two substantive declarations. According to his testimony made solely in writing, the conflict started because the guests asked for hot chocolate, which is not sold in the espresso bar, so he could not serve them with it. He claimed that when he told the family this they accused him of lying and that he simply doesn’t wan to serve them because they are of roma origin. After this a member of the group allegedly brushed his chin with his fist. Besides the substantive declarations the legal representative of the party against whom the proceedings where started stated that the person standing behind the counter on that day was not the owner of the establishment but only an employee. Taking the regulations for infringement of rights and injuries caused by employees into consideration, the procedure was continued against the company operating the espresso bar, more specifically against the companies’ representative. [1]
During the course of evidence all three members of the petitioner family recounted the events in the espresso bar in great detail and in a concordant manner. Besides the participants of the conflict itself several other people were also heard: the policemen called to and acting on the scene, the lady working at the local government who was phoned when service was denied, and the man that was in the espresso bar during the event.
In unique cases the procedures of the Authority are regulated by the law stipulating the regulations of state administration procedures, [2] and the government decree containing the detailed regulations of the proceedings of the authority. [3] These laws provide guidance for the trial, the clarification of the statement of facts, means of proof, deadlines and other important details of the procedure. If the information available for the clarification of the statement of facts is not sufficient, the Authority carries out the evidence procedures ex officio or on petition. [4] An important provision that differs from lawsuits is that the proceeding authority is not bound to the evidence proposals of the parties. [5] Insofar as the authority considers it necessary, it can also initiate the hearing of people chosen by it and the acquisition of documents. In accordance with this the Authority has carried out comprehensive verification and we are currently waiting for the closing resolution of the case.
[1] According to Article 348 section (1) of the Civil Code, if an employee causes a third party injury in connection with his labour relation, then failing statutory provision to the contrary, the employer is held responsible
[2] Law No. IV of 1957 on the General Rules of Public Administration Procedures
[3] Government Decree No 362 of 2004. (XII.26.) on the Equal Treatment Authority and the detailed regulation of its procedures.
[4] Áe. Article 26. section (1).
[5] In the process of civil lawsuits the judge is bound to the proving proposals of the suitors. In the process of proof only witnesses requested by the parties can be heard and only documents motioned by the respondent or the plaintiff can be acquired.