Legal briefing: Statelessness and the prohibition on discrimination against Romani communities April 2023 altering one of the factors in question – for example, by acquiring a nationality – would render Article 14 devoid of substance”. 44 In Szolcsán v. Hungary, an applicant of Roma ethnic origin argued that the refusal to allow them to transfer from a segregated school (almost exclusively attended by Roma children) to a non-segregated school was a result of racial discrimination and the State had failed to comply with its obligation and ensure the right to inclusive education. According to the judgment, “even in the absence of any discriminatory intent on the part of the State authorities in the present case, the Court considers that the difference in treatment which the applicant was subjected to in his education cannot be regarded as having been objectively and reasonably justified by any legitimate aim”.45 While this case does not address discrimination in the context of nationality, the ECtHR recognised that “Roma have become a specific type of disadvantaged and vulnerable minority and therefore require special protection. Their vulnerable position means that special consideration should be given to their needs and their different lifestyle both in the relevant regulatory framework and in reaching decisions in particular cases”.46 UN Treaty Committees have also adopted views on the principle of non-discrimination against Roma communities, which can be applied in the context of citizenship and nationality. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has made it clear that States are required to prohibit and end, by all appropriate means, racial discrimination and guarantee effective protection and remedies against such discrimination. 47 It has also clarified that a State Party must provide persuasive arguments to justify any differential treatment, including for example with regards to employment. 48 In this context, the CERD indicates that non-discrimination obligations are not fulfilled merely by providing a legislative and regulatory framework against racial discrimination but must include the obligation to provide for effective monitoring of the implementation of non-discriminatory recruitment policies in practice. In a case before the CEDAW Committee concerning access to healthcare by Romani women, the Committee gave weight to the authors’ complaints that the State had failed to take positive measures to eliminate discriminatory practices and provide adequate remedies in the event of violations. The Committee recommended, inter alia, that the State Party adopt and implement effective policies and measures to combat intersecting forms of discrimination in relation to Roma women and girls. It further recommended that the State Party increase the awareness of judges of nondiscrimination and the need for women to have access to effective, affordable, and timely judicial remedies.49 ECtHR, Andrejeva v. Latvia (n 23), §91. ECtHR, Szolcsán v. Hungary, application no. 24408/16, judgment of 30 March 2023, §58. 46 ECtHR, Szolcsán v. Hungary §47. See also D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], application no. 57325/00, judgment of 13 November 2007, §175-181. 47 CERD, Jallow v. Denmark, 1 December 2022, CERD/C/108/D/62/2018, §7.10. 48 CERD, V.S. v. Slovakia, 4 December 2015, CERD/C/88/D/56/2014, §7.3. 49 CEDAW, S.B. and M.B. v. North Macedonia, 2 November 2020, CEDAW/C/77/D/143/2019. 44 45 9