|
|
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 |
5(a) |
Admissible |
| L. K. v. The Netherlands |
4/1991 |
16 March 1993 |
4(a), 6 |
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 |
| Habassi v. Denmark |
10/1997 |
17 March 1999 |
2(1d), 6 |
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 |
| D.R. v. Australia |
42/2008 |
14 August 2009 |
2(1)(a), 5(d)(iii), 5(e)(iv), 5(e)(v) |
No Violation |
| Jama v. Denmark |
41/2008 |
21 August 2009 |
2(1d), 4, 6 |
|
| Adan v. Denmark |
43/2008 |
13 August 2010 |
2(1d), 4, 6 |
Violation |
| Hermansen et al. v. Denmark |
44/2009 |
13 August 2010 |
2(1)(d), 5(f), 6 |
Inadmissible |
| A. S. v. Russian Federation |
45/2009 |
26 August 2011 |
4, 5, 6 |
Inadmissible |
| Dawas and Shava v. Denmark |
46/2009 |
06 March 2012 |
2 (1d), 6 |
Violation |
| TBB v. Germany |
48/2010 |
26 February 2013 |
4 |
Violation |
| A.M.M. v. Switzerland |
50/2012 |
18 February 2014 |
1(1,2,3,4), 2(2), 4(c), 5(a,b,d), 6, 7 |
No Violation |
| V.S. v. Slovakia |
56/2014 |
04 December 2014 |
2(1)(a,c,d,e), 2(2), 5(e)(1), 6 |
Violation |
| M. v. Russian Federation |
55/2014 |
07 August 2015 |
2(1)(a), 5(a), 6 |
Inadmissible |
| Laurent Gabre Gabaroum v. France |
052/2012 |
10 May 2016 |
2(6) |
Violation |
| Benon Pjetri v. Switzerland |
053/2013 |
05 December 2016 |
2(1)(a), 2(1)(c), 5(a), 5(d)(iii), 6 |
No Violation |
Information in this section of Bayefsky.com is as of May 2018. To update use the UN website search engine here.
CERD, CCPR, CESCR, CEDAW, CAT, CRC, CMW, CRPD and CED all 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 complaint mechanism is 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.
Information on follow-up of final Views where a violation has been found is included in the section entitled "Follow-up: Jurisprudence".
|
