## Facts

- Eighteen Czech children of Roma origin in the Ostrava region were placed between 1996 and 1999 in “special schools” intended for pupils deemed unable to follow the ordinary curriculum.
- Special schools used a simplified curriculum associated with “mild mental disabilities,” limiting pupils’ future educational and employment opportunities.
- Placement decisions were made by school heads based on psychological testing and required legal-guardian consent.
- Local statistics for 1998–1999 showed a sharp disparity: Roma pupils were about 2.26% of primary-school pupils in Ostrava but about 56% of special-school pupils; roughly 1.8% of non-Roma pupils were placed in special schools, while Roma children were far more likely to be assigned there.
- The applicants alleged that the testing and placement system functioned to segregate Roma children into inferior education based on ethnic origin rather than intellectual capacity.
- Domestic challenges to the placements were rejected by education authorities; a constitutional complaint alleging segregation and racial discrimination was dismissed.

## Issues

1. Whether the disproportionate assignment of Roma children to special schools constituted discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to education, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
2. Whether the differential impact was objectively and reasonably justified by asserted pedagogical needs, psychological testing, and parental consent.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held, by 13–4, that there was a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
- The Court accepted statistical evidence as capable of establishing a strong presumption of indirect discrimination where a neutral policy produces a pronounced ethnic disparity.
- Given Roma children’s status as a vulnerable minority and the magnitude of overrepresentation, the burden shifted to the State to provide an adequate justification.
- The Court found the Government’s justification insufficient: the disparity was too large to be explained by ability alone; the testing raised concerns of cultural and linguistic bias; and special-school placement had stigmatizing and lasting effects on educational prospects.
- Parental consent did not absolve the State because consent must be informed and free; moreover, the right not to be subjected to racial discrimination was treated as non-waivable.
- The Court awarded each applicant EUR 4,000 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 10,000 jointly for costs and expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Article 14 prohibits not only explicit differential treatment but also indirect discrimination where a formally neutral measure disproportionately disadvantages a racial or ethnic group.
- Reliable statistics may establish a presumption of indirect discrimination when they show a particularly pronounced disparity; the State must then provide an objective and reasonable justification.
- A justification must pursue a legitimate aim and show proportionality between the means used and the aim; racial or ethnic distinctions require especially weighty reasons.
- States have positive obligations in education to prevent segregative effects and to ensure that any parental consent affecting children’s schooling is informed and free.
- Segregation in public education that results in inferior schooling and reduced life chances can constitute discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to education.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber found that the Czech education system’s placement practices produced de facto segregation of Roma children into inferior special schools without adequate justification, amounting to indirect racial discrimination in the right to education.


D.H. & Others v. Czech Republic, App. No. 57325/00 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2007) (Grand Chamber)