An adviser to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) gave sided against a Danish housing policy on the ground that it is discriminatory in nature, ahead of the EU’s top court ruling on the issue.
The scheme started in 2018 and aimed at improving integration with several measures, including forced relocation from neighbourhoods in an effort to force people outside of what the Danish government indicated first as hard ghettoes and then as transformation areas, in order to lower the number of people of “ethnic origin” from 50% to less than 40% by 2030. The case brought to the CJEU claimed that the use of “ethnic origin” used to describe and identify the neighbourhoods for the scheme is discriminatory.
The Advocate General Tamara Capeta released her non-binding opinion that the language used is discriminatory, as it makes a distinction between Western and non-Western origin, despite the ladder being a diverse group. The Danish legislation lumps them all together just because they are not Westerners.
The legal challenges were initiated in 2020 by residents in two neighbourhoods, Schackenborgvænge estate in Slagelse, and Mjølnerparken estate in Copenhagen. One of the lawyers following the case, Eddie Khawaja, welcomed Capeta’s opinion in an interview with Reuters, because “the Advocate General agrees exactly with the way I and my clients see this case.”
Capeta’s opinion stated that the “legislation puts those tenants in a precarious position in relation to security of their right to a home, thus resulting in their less favourable treatment in comparison to tenants of other neighbourhoods in a comparable situation.” She also added that the ethnic criterion for the legislation rather than help integration in Danish society “stigmatises the ethnic group”, making it harder.
The Danish government didn’t comment directly, but chose to wait for the CJEU final ruling. Denmark’s Minister of Social Affairs and Housing Sophie Hastorp Andersen released a statement pointing at the non-binding nature of Capeta’s opinion and reaffirming that they will wait for the final ruling. Opinions from the Advocate General could influence the ruling. After the CJEU makes its decision, Danish courts will determine the fulfilment of the ruling.
