On Holy Saturday of 2004, four roma youths living in a small town in Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County wanted to go to the local disco. The disco has been the most famous and most visited party place of the county for years. On the day in question the security guard standing at the door would not let the four youths enter by saying that they are not regular guests. They found this strange as everyone else was allowed to enter and they did not see any sign saying that there was an exclusive party going on. Based on the results of testing carried out by our office we have stated that anybody can be a “regular guest” in the disco, except romas. We have filed a lawsuit against the operator of the disco due to the infringement of personal rights.
The given entertainment unit only functions as a disco on Saturdays, the rest of the week it is a restaurant and confectionery. On the day in question the owner of the establishment was standing behind the security guard and he instructed the guard in front of the plaintiffs not to let them in. Several other people were also waiting in line but the status of regular guests was only examined in the case of the group of romas. They behaved exactly like the other guests, wore the same kind of clothes, were not rowdy, and weren’t drunk, so they gave no reason for discrimination.
We investigated the complaint with the already known method of testing. In this case on the day of testing at half past eleven first the plaintiffs and two of our roma testers stood in line waiting for admittance while two of our non-roma testers stood directly behind them in order to keep track of the events at the entrance. The male members of the roma group went first, the girls behind them. They were standing at the cash desk when the familiar security guard came out and told them that only regular guests can enter the disco. To the question of our roma tester the security guard stated that our plaintiffs were not regular guests. The owner appeared within a few seconds and inquired what the problem was. He then told the roma youths to stop holding the cue up. To emphasize his words, he reached out from behind the security guard and pushed one of the youths. To our roma testers question as to “why can’t we party here?” all he replied was “you can’t, go away”. Since they had no choice, the group left the scene humiliated but they could still hear the owner as the security guard nervously “what did they want here?”
At the same time our two non-roma testers got into the disco without difficulty. No one asked them if they were regular guests.
In agreement with the plaintiffs we have started a civil lawsuit, basing the legal action on the Law on Equal Opportunities. It is important to mention the fact that only three of the four youths is of roma origin, the forth is not a member of the minority group. Since on the offensive occasion he was also denied entrance due to the fact that he wanted to have fun as part of a group of romas, the discrimination against romas also affected him. It’s obvious that had he been a member of a non-roam group presumably no one would have stopped him at the entrance. [1]
In our petition handed to the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg country court in October 2004 we asked the court to state that the company operating the disco has violated the requirement of equal treatment and has infringed the personal rights of the plaintiffs. We also requested that the respondent be banned from further violation of law, and be obliged make a full apology by hanging the purview of the decision for 2 months in a place that is clearly visible to all in the disco. We asked for the establishment of 300.000 HUF non-pecuniary compensation for each of our plaintiffs. We also asked the court to oblige the respondent to pay one million HUF in public policy fine. [2] Our point of view was that the injured party was not only the youths represented by our office but the whole roma community. As it also turned out during testing, if someone’s skin is slightly darker, they are undesirable people in the disco. We also knew that this practice has been going on for years in the town and that this entertainment unit was a successful enterprise. We thought that above the compensation given to the plaintiffs, this one million HUF public policy fine is crucial in making the respondent company seriously consider adhering to laws in the future.
In this case our plaintiffs did not hire lawyers to represent them during the legal action but lived with the opportunity provided for by the Law on Equal Opportunities and authorised our office, and the Centre of European Roma Rights with their representation. [3] The rules of civil court define that in case of a lawsuit the representative can also be someone empowered to be such by separate law. This means that the law stipulating the provisions for the civil lawsuit allows the Law on Equal Opportunities to empower social bodies and bodies representing interests with representational rights in lawsuits.
However it seemed that the court was not aware of this in the beginning of the procedure, as it requested us to announce, “what is the legal, statutory basis of the authorisation according to which you can represent the plaintiffs in a court of law in their lawsuit filed for the violation of their inherent rights”. [4]
During the trial the respondent had to prove that he has kept the requirement of equal treatment or was not obliged to keep it in respect of the given legal relationship. Throughout the procedure the operator of the disco alluded that the on the first day in question our clients arrived to the disco in such a drunken state that the entrance had to be denied in order to protect the people already inside. Apparently they were so loud that they were “spotted” as “potential troublemakers”. With respect to the second day in question – the day of the testing – the defence of the respondent claimed that the operator of the disco made the decision to ban the plaintiffs from the disco for good because of the ranting and provocative behaviour of the group on the previous occasion. With reference to our roma testers the respondent explained that they could have entered the disco without the plaintiffs but they chose not to do so from their own free will. The operator of the disco brought several roma witnesses to testify that contrary to the claim of the plaintiffs many romas visit the establishment. Interestingly not one of the alleged roma guests lived in the town where the disco was situated. [5]
We successfully proved that contrary to the claim of the respondent our clients were known not to consume alcohol. Their young age made it unlikely in the first place but several local witnesses also confirmed this. During the procedure there was not a shadow of doubt that on the first day in question the plaintiffs arrived to the entrance of the disco by car and parked it right in front of the police building. If they really were so remarkably loud and obviously drunk that the security guard on duty in front of a disco – most probably playing loud music – spotted them, then the police should also have noticed the drunken driver. In the end the outcome of the lawsuit was decided by the fact that all of our testers declared that the when the youths represented by them and the roma testers were stopped at the entrance both the owner and the security guard only objected to the group not being regular guests. All depositions were concordant in that on the second day in question not a single word was said with respect to the plaintiffs having had an incident with the owner or employee of the disco, due to which they would have become unwanted guests.
In its sentence of 13th June 2005 the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county court finally stated that the operator of the disco has violated the requirement of equal treatment by unduly denying entry into the disco. The court has banned the respondent from committing similar violations of law, obliged him to pay each of the plaintiffs 150 thousand forints plus interest non-financial compensation, and finally to hang the purview of the sentence by the entrance of the disco for 2 months. With respect to public policy fine our office dropped its claim because due to the testimonies of the roma witnesses brought by the respondent, we cannot prove that this was not a unique case but continuous discriminative practice. The decision is not legally binding. Here we would like to call attention to the fact that exactly ten years have passed since the Góman-case, but it seems that the amount of compensation is still measured in prices of that time.
[1] According to Article 8 of the Ebktv. not only those with the protective characteristics listed in the law can experience discrimination, but also those who are assumed to have these characteristics. Thus not only people of roma origin can be the victim of discrimination but also someone who is, for one reason or another, considered to be a roma or is treated as one.
[2] Public policy fine can be levied by the court if the extent of the infringement of rights is disproportionate to the compensation paid.
[3] According to Article 67 section (1) point j) of the Law No. III of 1952 on the rules of court, a person entitled to proceed by a separate law can also act as a representative during trial.
[4] Excerpt from the decision of the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Court of 8th November 2004.
[5] Although we could not prove this we suppose that there are certain romas that are allowed to enter the disco, but they are in some way or other acquainted with the operator or the employees of the disco. Also, it’s not impossible – we have seen an example of it in another village – that only local romas are banned from the disco. The only contradiction to this is the fact that roma testers from Budapest who have never been to the village were also sent away.