 |
Jurisprudence
CERD
Complete list of decisions
| Case Name | Comm Number | Date | Articles | Outcome |
|---|
| Yilmaz-Dogan v. The Netherlands | 1/1984 | 10 August 1988 | 4, 5(e(i)), 6 | Violation |
| Diop v. France | 2/1989 | 22 August 1990 | 1 (2) | Admissible |
| Diop v. France | 2/1989 | 18 March 1991 | 1(1,2), 5(e) | No Violation |
| Narrainen v. Norway | 3/1991 | 16 March 1993 | | Admissible |
| L. K. v. The Netherlands | 4/1991 | 16 March 1993 | 4(a), 6 | Violation |
| Narrainen v. Norway | 3/1991 | 15 March 1994 | 5(a) | No Violation |
| C.P. and M.P. v. Denmark | 5/1994 | 15 March 1995 | 6 | Inadmissible |
| Barbaro v. Australia | 7/1995 | 14 August 1997 | | Inadmissible |
| Z.U.B.S. v. Australia | 6/1995 | 19 August 1997 | 5 (a, c, e(i)) | Admissible |
| B.M.S. v. Australia | 8/1996 | 19 August 1997 | 5 (e(i)) | Admissible |
| D. S. v. Sweden | 9/1997 | 17 August 1998 | | Inadmissible |
| B.M.S. v. Australia | 8/1996 | 12 March 1999 | 5 (e(i)) | No Violation |
| Habassi v. Denmark | 10/1997 | 17 March 1999 | 2(1d), 6 | Violation |
| Z.U.B.S. v. Australia | 6/1995 | 26 August 1999 | 2, 3, 5 (a, c, e(i)),6 | No Violation |
| Ahmad v. Denmark | 16/1999 | 13 March 2000 | 2(1d), 6 | Violation |
| B.J. v. Denmark | 17/1999 | 17 March 2000 | 6 | No Violation |
| Koptova v. Slovakia | 13/1998 | 08 August 2000 | 5(d(i)) | Violation |
| Barbaro v. Australia | 12/1998 | 08 August 2000 | | Inadmissible |
| E.I.F. v. The Netherlands | 15/1999 | 21 March 2001 | 2, 5, 6, 7 | No Violation |
| F. A. v. Norway | 18/2000 | 21 March 2001 | | Inadmissible |
| Lacko v. Slovakia | 11/1998 | 09 August 2001 | 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | No Violation |
| D. S. v. Sweden | 14/1998 | 10 August 2001 | | Inadmissible |
| D. S. v. Sweden | 21/2001 | 10 August 2001 | | Inadmissible |
| Mostafa v. Denmark | 19/2000 | 10 August 2001 | | Inadmissible |
| M.B. v. Denmark | 20/2000 | 13 March 2002 | 2 (1d) | No Violation |
| K.R.C. v. Denmark | 23/2002 | 13 August 2002 | | Inadmissible |
| P.O.E.M. and F.A.S.M. v. Denmark | 22/2002 | 19 March 2003 | | Inadmissible |
| Hagan v. Australia | 26/2002 | 20 March 2003 | 2(1c), 5, 6, 7 | Violation |
| Sadic v. Denmark | 25/2002 | 21 March 2003 | 2 (1d), 6 | Inadmissible |
| Regerat et al. v. France | 24/2002 | 21 March 2003 | | Inadmissible |
| Kamal Quereshi v. Denmark | 27/2002 | 19 August 2003 | 4(b), 6 | No Violation |
| Documentary and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination v. Denmark | 28/2003 | 19 August 2003 | | Inadmissible |
| L. R. et al. v. Slovakia | 31/2003 | 07 March 2005 | 1, 2(1a), 5(d)(iii), 6 | Violation |
| Sefic v. Denmark | 32/2003 | 07 March 2005 | 2(1d), 5, 6 | No Violation |
| Quereshi v. Denmark | 33/2003 | 09 March 2005 | 2(1d), 4, 6 | No Violation |
| The Jewish community of Oslo et al. v. Norway | 30/2003 | 15 August 2005 | 4, 5, 6 | Violation |
| Gelle v. Denmark | 34/2004 | 06 March 2006 | 2(1d), 4, 6 | Violation |
| Durmic v. Serbia and Montenegro | 29/2003 | 06 March 2006 | 5(f), 6 | Violation |
| P.S.N. v. Denmark | 36/2006 | 08 August 2007 | 1 | Inadmissible |
| A.W.R.A.P. v. Denmark | 37/2006 | 08 August 2007 | 1 | Inadmissible |
| Er v. Denmark | 40/2007 | 08 August 2007 | 2(1d), 5(ev), 6 | Violation |
| Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti und Roma et al. v. Germany | 38/2006 | 22 February 2008 | 4(a) , 6 | No Violation |
| D.F. v. Australia | 39/2006 | 22 February 2008 | 5(e)(iv), 2(1)(a) | No Violation |
Information is as of 6 June 2008.
CERD, CCPR, CAT, CEDAW, CMW, Disability Convention and Enforced disappearances Convention have optional complaint mechanisms, whereby an individual may complain to the respective treaty body that his or her rights under the treaty have been violated. The CMW and Enforced disappearances Convention complaint mechanisms are not yet in force.
Included in this section are:
- requests made by the treaty body for interim measures
- decisions to deal jointly with cases
- admissibility decisions (normally decisions determining a complaint is admissible are not issued separately and hence this category involves decisions in which complaints are found to be inadmissible)
- final views.
The Human Rights Committee (under CCPR), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (under CERD), the Committee Against Torture (under CAT) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (under CEDAW) also formally follow up on final Views where a violation has been found. This information is included in the section entitled "Follow-up: Jurisprudence".
|
|
