What Happened?

On December 21, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European ⁤Union (CJEU) ruled that Denmark’s “ghetto law,” officially known as‌ the law on parallel societies, violates the EU’s ⁤directive on equal treatment by discriminating based on ethnic origin. The case was ⁤brought by residents⁣ evicted from social​ housing in Mjølnerparken (Copenhagen) and Schackenborgvænge (Ringsted) based on criteria established by the law. Amnesty ⁢International welcomed the decision.

The “Ghetto⁤ Law” and Its Criteria

The Danish law,enacted in ⁢2018,aimed to combat the creation of “parallel societies” and ​reduce the concentration ​of residents‌ with immigrant backgrounds in certain housing estates. ⁣ It established ⁢criteria for identifying “ghettoes” based on factors like unemployment ‌rates, education levels, ⁤income, and‍ the percentage of residents from non-western countries. ⁢ Areas meeting these criteria were subject to redevelopment plans, including the⁢ sale of public⁤ housing and restrictions ​on new tenancies.

Specifically, the law targeted areas where at least 40% ‌of residents were from non-Western​ countries, and where ‍at least two of the⁤ following criteria were met: European Parliament

• Unemployment rate of at⁤ least 20%
• More than 80% of residents ⁢aged 30-59 without a vocational education
• more than 40% of residents ⁤aged 15-64 without being attached to the labor market
• A high concentration of residents on public ⁢assistance
• A high rate of crime

The Court’s Reasoning

The CJEU found that the criteria ‌used to designate “ghettoes” relied heavily on the⁣ national origin of residents,effectively discriminating against individuals based on their ethnic or racial background. The Court stated that the law lacked sufficient justification and did not meet the requirements of⁣ the⁣ EU’s Race Equality⁣ Directive (2000/43/EC).The​ directive aims‍ to prevent discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin⁤ in employment, education, social protection, and access to ⁤goods and services, including‌ housing.

the court emphasized that while member states have a legitimate interest in combating social exclusion and promoting integration, these objectives must be pursued in a way that ⁢respects fundamental ⁢rights and avoids indirect discrimination. ‍The CJEU determined that⁤ the Danish law’s criteria were not objectively justified and disproportionately affected individuals from minority ethnic groups.

Reactions ​and Implications

Dina Hashem, Senior Legal Advisor at Amnesty International Denmark, stated that the ruling was a ​”victory for equality and non-discrimination.” she added, “Today