Advanced

Bostadsdiskriminering- Hur kan diskriminering på bostadsmarknaden bevisas?

Ingemarsson, Johanna LU (2013) JURM02 20131
Department of Law
Abstract
Summary
This work is based on the assumption that discrimination in the housing market is present and in a desire to shed light on how the legal anti-discrimination system works in this area. The focus of this study is the five cases of discrimination that have been decided by Swedish courts and the fifteen cases in which DO (The Equality Ombudsman) has reached a settlement in the housing area. The perspective of this study is that of the claimant and the central question is: How can discrimination in the housing market be proved?
To answer this question the rule of the reversal of the burden of proof in Ch. 6 Sec. 3 of The Discrimination Act becomes important. This has been studied mainly from the point of view of direct discrimination... (More)
Summary
This work is based on the assumption that discrimination in the housing market is present and in a desire to shed light on how the legal anti-discrimination system works in this area. The focus of this study is the five cases of discrimination that have been decided by Swedish courts and the fifteen cases in which DO (The Equality Ombudsman) has reached a settlement in the housing area. The perspective of this study is that of the claimant and the central question is: How can discrimination in the housing market be proved?
To answer this question the rule of the reversal of the burden of proof in Ch. 6 Sec. 3 of The Discrimination Act becomes important. This has been studied mainly from the point of view of direct discrimination since most of the cases studied concern this form of discrimination.
The reversal of the burden of proof rule is to be seen as a rule of presumption. This means that the trial of discrimination cases is done in two steps. In the first step, it is considered whether the claimant, the victim of discrimination, has been able to present sufficient evidence to create a presumption of discrimination by proving that a disadvantage occurred and that there is a comparable situation. If the claimant is able to do this, the burden of proof turns to the respondent and it is for the respondent to come forward with evidence that the disadvantage has no connection with the discrimination ground.
That the burden of proof rule should be applied as a presumption rule and that it is the respondent who has the burden of proving (no) causation is evident in Swedish discrimination cases. The reversal of the burden of proof rule also seems to have had a major impact on the opportunity to achieve settlements in housing matters. Probably because of to the fact that the counterparty often have had difficulties to prove that the disadvantage that the person has suffered was not caused solely by reasons that can not be linked to the discrimination ground.
From legal doctrine and EU legal practice, it appears that the burden of proof placed on the claimant in the first step of the trial many times may be reduced. However, the Swedish legal preparatory works seems not to deal with this question and in the Swedish labour law cases the claimant rarely - if ever- receives a reduction in the burden of proof in the first step creating the presumption. To some extent, although, the claimant in Swedish housing cases seems to have received a reduction in the burden of proof. However, in one of the cases, tried in a district court, it can be questioned whether the high requirement of proof set can be said to be in line with the EU practice on the reversal of the burden of proof rule
Many studies have proved discrimination on an aggregate level. The studies made by DO and some academic studies have been using the so-called practice testing method. An important question in this study is if this method could be used as a strategy in individual cases. The study finds that practice test seems to be very well suited for legal anti-discrimination work in the housing area and that it is a strategy for success. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Sammanfattning
Detta arbete tar utgångspunkt dels i grundantagandet att diskriminering på bostadsmarknaden sker och dels i en ambition att belysa hur det juridiska antidiskrimineringsarbetet inom detta område kan bedrivas.
Materialet för arbetet utgörs av de fem mål som har prövats av svenska domstolar som rör diskriminering på bostadsmarknaden och de 15 ärenden där DO och de tidigare ombudsmännen har drivit ärenden på bostadsområdet till förlikning. Utgångspunkt tas i ett tydligt partsperspektiv och frågan som ställs är: Hur kan diskriminering på bostadsmarknaden bevisas?
För att besvara denna fråga utreds dels vilken innebörd bevisbörderegeln i 6 kap. 3 § diskrimineringslagen har och dels vilka beviskrav som ställs på den som... (More)
Sammanfattning
Detta arbete tar utgångspunkt dels i grundantagandet att diskriminering på bostadsmarknaden sker och dels i en ambition att belysa hur det juridiska antidiskrimineringsarbetet inom detta område kan bedrivas.
Materialet för arbetet utgörs av de fem mål som har prövats av svenska domstolar som rör diskriminering på bostadsmarknaden och de 15 ärenden där DO och de tidigare ombudsmännen har drivit ärenden på bostadsområdet till förlikning. Utgångspunkt tas i ett tydligt partsperspektiv och frågan som ställs är: Hur kan diskriminering på bostadsmarknaden bevisas?
För att besvara denna fråga utreds dels vilken innebörd bevisbörderegeln i 6 kap. 3 § diskrimineringslagen har och dels vilka beviskrav som ställs på den som utsatts för diskriminering. Materialet som behandlas rör i de allra flesta fall direkt diskriminering och det är främst utifrån den formen av diskriminering som studien har utförts.
Bevisbörderegeln är att se som en presumtionsregel. Detta medför att prövningen av diskrimineringsmål ska göras i två steg. I det första steget ska det prövas om käranden i målet, den som utsatts för diskriminering, har kunnat lägga fram tillräckliga bevis för att skapa en presumtion att diskriminering föreligger genom att föra bevisning om att ett missgynnande skett och att det föreligger en jämförbar situation. Om käranden kunnat göra detta går bevisbördan över till svaranden och det åligger denne att lägga fram bevis för att missgynnandet inte har något samband med diskrimineringsgrunden som anförts eller att motbevisa missgynnandet eller den jämförbara situationen.
Att bevisbörderegeln ska tillämpas som en presumtionsregel och att det är svaranden som har bevisbördan för orsakssambandet syns tydligt i de mål som har studerats. Bevisbörderegeln framstår dessutom ha haft stor inverkan på möjligheterna att nå förlikningar i bostadsärenden eftersom motparten ofta har haft mycket svårt att bevisa att det missgynnande som personen har utsatts för inte har orsakats enbart av anledningar som inte kan kopplas till diskrimineringsgrunden.
Av doktrin och EU-rättslig praxis framgår det att beviskraven som ställs på käranden i det första steget av prövningen många gånger kan komma att sänkas. Däremot kan det inte sägas finnas något entydigt stöd för detta i de svenska förarbetena. Utifrån praxis på arbetsområdet, vilken är långt mer omfattande än praxis på bostadsområdet, följer att det är en mycket liten bevislättnad som kan komma på fråga om ens någon. De fem domarna från bostadsområdet visar i viss mån på att käranden i bostadsmålen har fått en bevislättnad. I ett av målen kan det dock ifrågasättas om inte mer bevislättnad skulle ha kunnat krävas med hänsyn till den EU-rättsliga regleringen av bevisbörderegelns inverkan.
Utgångspunkten för arbetet har tagits i studier som har gjorts på en övergripande nivå över bostadsområdet för att underbygga antagandet att diskriminering på bostadsmarknaden förekommer. I dessa studier, som har gjorts av DO och inom den akademiska världen, har man använt sig av så kallade praktiktest som metod. En viktig frågeställning som lyfts i detta arbete är huruvida praktiktest även skulle kunna användas som strategi för att på rättslig väg nå diskriminering på bostadsmarknaden.
Studien har kunnat visa på att praktiktest mycket väl lämpar sig för det juridiska antidiskrimineringsarbetet och att det är en strategi som kan förstärka chanserna att nå framgång vid domstolsprövningen av det enskilda fallet betydligt. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Ingemarsson, Johanna LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Discrimination in the housing market
course
JURM02 20131
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
language
Swedish
id
3567482
date added to LUP
2013-04-29 15:22:42
date last changed
2013-04-29 15:22:42
@misc{3567482,
  abstract     = {Summary
This work is based on the assumption that discrimination in the housing market is present and in a desire to shed light on how the legal anti-discrimination system works in this area. The focus of this study is the five cases of discrimination that have been decided by Swedish courts and the fifteen cases in which DO (The Equality Ombudsman) has reached a settlement in the housing area. The perspective of this study is that of the claimant and the central question is: How can discrimination in the housing market be proved?
 To answer this question the rule of the reversal of the burden of proof in Ch. 6 Sec. 3 of The Discrimination Act becomes important. This has been studied mainly from the point of view of direct discrimination since most of the cases studied concern this form of discrimination.
 The reversal of the burden of proof rule is to be seen as a rule of presumption. This means that the trial of discrimination cases is done in two steps. In the first step, it is considered whether the claimant, the victim of discrimination, has been able to present sufficient evidence to create a presumption of discrimination by proving that a disadvantage occurred and that there is a comparable situation. If the claimant is able to do this, the burden of proof turns to the respondent and it is for the respondent to come forward with evidence that the disadvantage has no connection with the discrimination ground.
 That the burden of proof rule should be applied as a presumption rule and that it is the respondent who has the burden of proving (no) causation is evident in Swedish discrimination cases. The reversal of the burden of proof rule also seems to have had a major impact on the opportunity to achieve settlements in housing matters. Probably because of to the fact that the counterparty often have had difficulties to prove that the disadvantage that the person has suffered was not caused solely by reasons that can not be linked to the discrimination ground.
 From legal doctrine and EU legal practice, it appears that the burden of proof placed on the claimant in the first step of the trial many times may be reduced. However, the Swedish legal preparatory works seems not to deal with this question and in the Swedish labour law cases the claimant rarely - if ever- receives a reduction in the burden of proof in the first step creating the presumption. To some extent, although, the claimant in Swedish housing cases seems to have received a reduction in the burden of proof. However, in one of the cases, tried in a district court, it can be questioned whether the high requirement of proof set can be said to be in line with the EU practice on the reversal of the burden of proof rule
 Many studies have proved discrimination on an aggregate level. The studies made by DO and some academic studies have been using the so-called practice testing method. An important question in this study is if this method could be used as a strategy in individual cases. The study finds that practice test seems to be very well suited for legal anti-discrimination work in the housing area and that it is a strategy for success.},
  author       = {Ingemarsson, Johanna},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Bostadsdiskriminering- Hur kan diskriminering på bostadsmarknaden bevisas?},
  year         = {2013},
}