The case of Daniel Kotor v. France. The opinion of the Committee dated November 25, 2021. Communication No. 65/2018.
In 2019, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to France.
The Committee considered that the harm claimed by the author in connection with the failure to comply with the decision of the Court of Appeal of Versailles to review his coefficient in the classification of positions prevented full compensation for racial discrimination, since the author was not restored to the position in which he would have been if his rights had not been violated, and this would have allowed recalculate the amount of his pension. The Committee concluded; The refusal of the State party's court to provide the author with a remedy to obtain just compensation and full reparation for the discrimination of which he was a victim constituted a violation of article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
As could be seen from the text of the Opinion, the author claimed that he was able to achieve only partial enforcement of the decision of the Versailles Court of Appeal of 2 April 2008, which recognized the fact of racial discrimination against him, awarded him damages and ordered a review of his coefficient in the classification of positions, as well as to issue him an appropriate certificate of employment (paragraph 3.6 Opinions).
The Committee's legal position is that the victim's claim for compensation should be considered in all cases, including cases where no bodily injury was caused, but when the victim was subjected to humiliation, defamation or other encroachment on her reputation and self-esteem. The Committee also recalls that, in accordance with article 6 of the Convention, States parties shall ensure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies through competent national courts and other State institutions in the event of any acts of racial discrimination infringing, in violation of the Convention, on his human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the right to bring a claim to these courts for fair and adequate compensation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination. He also recalls that article 6 of the Convention guarantees full and effective reparation. The Committee notes that restitution is aimed at restoring the victim's original position prior to the commission of the violation; compensation should be awarded, in particular, for any economically assessable damage caused by gross violations of international human rights law (paragraph 7.4 of the Opinion).
The Committee recalls that its terms of reference do not include verification of the interpretation of facts and national legislation, except in cases where the decisions taken are clearly arbitrary or amount to a denial of justice (paragraph 7.5 of the Opinion).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: with regard to the complaint under article 6 of the Convention, the Committee noted the author's claim that the decision of the Versailles Court of Appeal of 2 April 2008 was only partially implemented, since no revision of his coefficient in the classification of posts (hereinafter referred to as the coefficient) was carried out. The Committee drew attention to the fact that there was no review, which the State party did not dispute. The Committee took note of the State party's arguments that the said review was impossible for an objective reason - the author had been retired for several years. The Committee also referred to judicial practice, according to which the revision of the coefficient is an integral part of full compensation for damages, and the retirement of an employee does not prevent this. The Committee drew attention to the fact that in its decision on the interpretation of the judgment of 2 April 2008, the Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled that by its decision on compensation for damages, including the consequences of the revision of the author's coefficient, it fully compensates for the harm caused to him as a result of racial discrimination, and that, consequently, compensation to the author was complete. The Committee also noted that the author's lack of a coefficient could have had direct consequences in determining the amount of his salary for periods during which he was discriminated against on the basis of ethnic origin. He also stressed the following - the author's argument that his lack of a required coefficient led to a decrease in the amount of his old-age pension due to the fact that it was calculated on the basis of a lower salary was not refuted by the State party. However, as the Committee noted, the information at its disposal did not allow it to conclude that, in the context of the compensation awarded in favor of the author, the impact of the revision of the coefficient on his pension was taken into account, and that consideration of the case in a higher court would clarify this issue (paragraph 7.2 of the Opinion).
The Committee considered that the harm claimed by the author in connection with the failure to comply with the decision of the Court of Appeal of Versailles to review his coefficient prevented full compensation for racial discrimination, from which he suffered, since the author was not restored to the position in which he would have been if his rights had not been violated, and this allowed I would like to recalculate the amount of his pension (paragraph 7.6 of the Opinion).
The Committee's conclusions: the facts presented to it indicated a violation by the State party of article 6 of the Convention.