The case of Bienon Pietri v. Switzerland. The opinion of the Committee dated December 5, 2016. Communication No. 53/2013.
In 2011, the author was assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Switzerland.
The Committee found that it did not follow from the information provided by the parties that the refusal of the applicant's application for naturalization was based on discriminatory criteria related to his national or ethnic origin. With regard to the author's allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability, the Committee indicated that, in accordance with article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, it was incompetent to consider a separate allegation of discrimination on the basis of disability. The Committee drew attention to the following - the national courts examined the applicant's complaint of discrimination and, after examining the minutes of the municipal assembly meeting and other evidence, concluded that the decision to refuse his application for naturalization was not motivated by discriminatory motives. It has been established that the Supreme Court examined both the applicant's allegations concerning both discrimination on the basis of national or ethnic origin and discrimination on the basis of disability. In the Committee's view, although the applicant disagrees with the Supreme Court's reasoning, there is nothing in the information available to the Committee to indicate that the court's decision constituted a violation of the Convention.
As could be seen from the text of the Opinion, the applicant claimed that the Supreme Court had not sufficiently examined the grounds for the decision of the Municipal Assembly to refuse his application for naturalization, which constituted an act of discrimination based on his origin (the author was an Albanian citizen), committed in violation of certain provisions of the Convention.
Legal positions of the Committee: It is not within the competence of the Committee to assess the interpretation of facts and national legislation by national authorities, except in cases where the decisions taken are clearly arbitrary or otherwise amount to a denial of justice (paragraph 7.5 of the Opinion).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it noted the applicant's claim that the decision to reject his application for naturalization, taken by members of the municipal assembly, constituted an act of racial discrimination, since it was dictated by his ethnic origin. The applicant referred to a speech by one of the members of the municipal assembly, who spoke negatively about his national and ethnic origin. The applicant's claim that the discriminatory effects were noticed by the public, the media and non-governmental organizations was noted (paragraph 7.3 of the Opinion).
The Committee also took into account the applicant's views that the integration requirements imposed in the context of naturalization were not properly correlated either with his disability or with the hostility he faced. The Committee took note of the State party's contention that at a meeting of the municipal assembly on 27 March 2009, several arguments were put forward against the applicant's application, including false information provided by him in a previous application, the fact that he was not a member of any association of persons with disabilities and did not work in a specialized workshop for persons with disabilities, and, accordingly, it was concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for integration into the local community. The Committee drew attention to the fact that three instances reviewing this decision, including two courts, concluded that the members of the municipal assembly had brought arguments against his naturalization that were not related to his origin, and therefore did not constitute racial discrimination. The Committee noted that the Swiss Supreme Court recognized that the applicant's decision to withdraw from public life was understandable in view of the rejection he faced from individual residents of the community, primarily due to the fact that he was disabled and moved in a wheelchair, but that the applicant still had opportunities to integrate, despite disability, and the requirements were proportionate to his circumstances (paragraph 7.3 of the Opinion).
The applicant's claim was noted that the Swiss Supreme Court did not sufficiently take into account that disability was an aggravating circumstance and aggravated the decision of the municipal assembly to refuse the application for naturalization on the basis of his origin, and therefore did not examine whether this could be equated to double discrimination. The Committee also took into account the applicant's consideration that the discriminatory statements of one of the assembly members influenced the decision to deny him naturalization and the court should have shifted the burden of proof to the community in order to convincingly prove that the refusal of his application for naturalization was not motivated by racial discrimination or double discrimination (paragraph 7.4 of the Opinion).
The Committee noted that the national authorities and the courts, in support of their decisions, referred to the fact that the applicant could not apply for naturalization for reasons unrelated to the alleged discrimination based on his Albanian origin, in particular because he had failed to integrate into the local community. The Committee considered the following: it did not follow from the information provided by the parties that the refusal of the applicant's application for naturalization was based on discriminatory criteria related to his national or ethnic origin. The Committee concluded that discrimination based on national or ethnic origin had not been proven. With regard to the author's allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability, the Committee indicated that, in accordance with article 1 of the Convention, it was incompetent to consider a separate allegation of discrimination on the basis of disability. In view of the above, the Committee concluded: the facts presented by the applicant do not indicate a violation of the provisions of the Convention (paragraph 7.6 of the Opinion).
With regard to the applicant's allegation of a violation of article 6 of the Convention, the Committee noted that the national courts had examined his complaint of discrimination and, after examining the minutes of the municipal assembly meeting and other evidence, had concluded that the decision to refuse his application for naturalization had not been motivated by discriminatory motives. It was found that the Supreme Court had examined both the applicant's allegations concerning both discrimination on the basis of national or ethnic origin and discrimination on the basis of disability. In the Committee's opinion, although the applicant did not agree with the Court's reasoning, there was nothing in the information available to the Committee that indicated that the Supreme Court's decision constituted a violation of the Convention. Consequently, the Committee was unable to conclude that the applicant's right to protection and remedies against racial discrimination, as set out in article 6 of the Convention, had been violated (paragraph 7.7 of the Opinion).
The Committee's conclusions: the facts presented did not indicate a violation of any provisions of the Convention.