Explain and analyse why D.H. v Czech Republic (2007) has been described as the most important case ever decided by the European Court of Human Rights.

In the introduction, explain the issue and set out how the question will be answered. The question is asking the essay to focus on the development of protection from discrimination under the ECHR, specifically the recognition of indirect discrimination and the protection of groups such as minorities (in the D.H case, the group in question was the Roma community).

Structure the essay to answer the question in a clear manner. It may be useful to focus on the development of article 14 by examining the Roma cases as an example to illustrate your arguments.

The essay should:

• Explain briefly how article 14 works – must be linked to another right, must be a comparator, must be on a ground in article 14
• Discuss limitations of this approach: focus on individual, limitations of direct discrimination approach: burden of proof – motive and intent with regard to difference of treatment caused by a measure has to be proven by the victim before the state has to justify a difference of treatment – up until D.H, failure of ECtHR to recognise concept of indirect discrimination where focus is on the group (c/f Brown case in USA), note the victim does not have to prove motive under indirect discrimination
• Example of limitations etc. – the Roma
• No explicit right to minority protection in the ECHR
• Pre D.H and the problems with the Court’s approach – direct discrimination, failure to recognise race discrimination –Anguelova, Nachova, implicit but no explicit recognition of indirect discrimination.
• D.H -The Grand Chamber explicitly recognised indirect discrimination – changes to burden of proof, easier to demonstrate difference of treatment of a group. Discuss why it reached this decision.
• Post D.H –  Impact of D.H and Orsus v Croatia  case, Horvath case

The essay should use the arguments of academics, relevant case law (especially note chamber judgments in D.H and Orsus and dissenting judgments in Anguelova, D.H and Orsus) and reports

Conclusions: This should bring the arguments together and evaluate the impact of D.H, discussing its importance and the impact the case may have on the protection of discrimination by the ECtHR generally.