The concept of ethnic origin v. ‘place of birth’
Jyske Finans, C 668/15, 6 April 2017
Facts:
The person concerned was born in Bosnia and Herzegovina and had acquired Danish nationality. When purchasing a second-hand car with his Danish partner by means of a loan, the bank required additional proof of his identity, due to an internal procedure applicable only to people born in a country other than the EU and EFTA member states. No such request was made to his partner, born in Denmark. The complainant thought that the bank’ request was discriminatory. The bank argued that had merely complied with its obligations under the rules on the prevention of money laundering.
Findings of court:
The court found no direct discrimination since a person’s place of birth cannot alone justify a general presumption that that person is a member of a given ethnic group. It observed that ethnic origin cannot be determined on the basis of a single criterion (place of birth) but must be based on a set of elements, such as common nationality, religious faith, language, cultural and traditional origins and backgrounds (as per CHEZ). It also noted that nationality discrimination is not covered by the Race Directive.
The court found no indirect discrimination either. The requirement is applicable without distinction to all third country nationals and not just a specific group, which for the court meant that such practice didn’t place a particular ethnicity at a disadvantage, rejecting the argument that the use of the criterion of “a person’s country of birth”, is generally more likely to a?ect persons of a ‘given ethnicity’ than ‘other persons’.
Implications:
Less favourable treatment based solely on someone´s place of birth does not amount to direct discrimination under the Race Directive.