By Susheela Math,
Head of Legal at Systemic Justice and formerly Senior Managing Litigation Officer at the Open Society Justice Initiative
In November, Denmark’s Supreme Court will consider a case concerning the State’s division of its citizens into those of “Western” and “non-Western” background. This classification is the lynchpin of the country’s ‘Ghetto Package’ of laws, which has led to the loss of thousands of family homes across the country. At the end of last year, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) paved the way for the Danish courts to finally rule measures pursuant to this legislation unlawful under racial discrimination law. This article explores the implications of the judgment, not just for Denmark but the whole region in the current moment of escalating hostility towards racialised groups.
Read the full article here.
Background
The judgment followed a hearing that took place before the Grand Chamber of the CJEU on two joined cases, one of which was brought by residents from Mjølnerparken, Copenhagen.
For over six years, the residents have been challenging ministerial approval of a development plan entailing the sale of over 200 family homes in their neighbourhood. The sale was imposed under Denmark’s ‘Ghetto Package’ of laws. One of the Package’s key provisions is a requirement to reduce “common family housing” (independent, not-for-profit housing) in “tough ghettos” (areas that have met the criteria of a ghetto for five years, with the hallmark feature of having a majority of residents of “non-Western” background) to a maximum of 40% by the year 2030. The reduction can take place through means such as demolition and sale. This has led to thousands of people across the country losing – or being in the process of losing – their homes.
FEANTSA has covered the residents’ story from the filing of the case to a groundbreaking opinion by the Advocate General in February 2025, declaring the legislative scheme directly discriminatory under the EU’s Race Equality Directive (“Directive”). In this latest article, Susheela Math breaks down the meaning and implications of the Grand Chamber’s judgment, on the eve of a key decision by Denmark’s Supreme Court.
What did the Grand Chamber conclude?
The Grand Chamber’s judgment clarifies principles of European Union (“EU”) law and the correct interpretation of the Directive in alignment with the residents’ arguments. The findings in the judgment emphasise that the loss of a home is a fundamental intrusion of rights and that the Directive’s protections must be interpreted broadly, while all limitations must be interpreted strictly. Momentously, the CJEU completely dismissed confusions that arose following an earlier judgment (Jyske Finans) and during the course of the preliminary reference procedure, including any attempts to argue that integration is a special situation requiring different rules.
The CJEU has thus provided the Danish courts with the tools to finally make the EU’s promise of a common high level of protection against discrimination a reality by reaching the same conclusion as the Advocate General. More broadly, it has also outlined the obligations of courts throughout the EU to tackle the scourge of racial discrimination, however it continues to shift and disguise itself.
For those with lived experience of racial discrimination and racist violence, facing the daily challenge of simply pursuing their lives undisturbed, there is no need to explain that this high level of protection is at least as important now as when it was first introduced. As the EU has acknowledged, despite international protections having been recognised for six decades, racial discrimination has increased in recent years.
As politicians and others across Europe become more emboldened in their targeting and dehumanising of racialised and marginalised groups, the law is clear on the duty of states and institutions to weed out and protect all citizens from racism – and the courts are now fully equipped to tackle modern manifestations of it. This includes by guarding against: proxy wording for race/ethnic origin; toxic political rhetoric problematising and stereotyping racial and ethnic minorities; and the use of integration as an excuse to discriminate and treat racialised groups as second-class citizens.
Read on for the six key takeaways particularly worth noting here.
