K. R. C., a citizen of the United States, residing as a permanent resident in Denmark, claims to be a victim of a violation by Denmark of articles 2, paragraph 1 (d), and 6, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. K. R. C. had lived in Denmark for the last 9 years and had permanent employment for the last 8 years, and was just about to start in a new job at Novo Nordisk.
In June 2000, K. R. C. purchased a car at Brandt’s Auto, in Denmark. The car dealers suggested approaching Sparekassen Vestsjælland (“the bank”), with which Brandt’s Auto cooperated, for a loan. As part of the standard information in the loan form it was indicated that the person applying for a loan was to declare “that I am a Danish citizen”. Further the letter accompanying the application form stated: “You are kindly requested to hand in the application duly filled in and enclose a copy of your Danish passport to the sales agent”. As K. R. C. is not a Danish citizen, she was not able to sign the application form.
K. R. C. contacted the bank, which informed that if one did not have Danish citizenship, one could not apply for a loan, and that the reason was that the bank did not have any possibilities of collecting the loan if the individual left the country with the car. The deputy head of the bank confirmed this information. K. R. C. did not send the application back as she believed that her chances of loan approval were slim. Thus, K. R. C. applied and got a car-loan from her own bank, which cost 1% more than the potential loan from the bank.
Following this incident, K. R. C. reported the incident to the Documentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination (“DRC”) in Copenhagen. The DRC informed the bank that it was prohibited to request and use information about a person’s citizenship when handling loan applications, and requested the bank to remove the requirement of citizenship in the application form in question, and in future application forms. The bank responded that it was not of the view that this requirement was illegal, that although it may appear from the form that citizenship is an invariable criterion to receiving loan approval, this is not the case, but that nevertheless, it would remove this criterion from the forms.
The DRC wrote to the bank and requested it to compensate the difference between the potential loan at the bank and the loan K. R. C. received from the petitioner’s own bank -a difference of 10180 dkr. The bank replied that it was still of the opinion that the requirement of citizenship was not illegal, and that they did actually offer K. R. C. the loan, and hence they had no obligation to provide with compensation.
The DRC reported the incident to the police department in Holbæk, expressing the view that the treatment of the petitioner violated the Danish Act on the prohibition of differential treatment on the basis of race (“the Act against Discrimination”), which, it claims, partly implements the ICERD into Danish law. The police informed the DRC that the investigation of the case had been discontinued, as it considered that there was no reasonable evidence that an unlawful act had been committed.
The DRC, on behalf of K. R. C., complained to the Public Prosecutor for Sealand, claiming that the petitioner had not been treated on the same basis as Danes, because of her ethnic origin and suffered an economic loss. The Public Prosecutor informed the DRC that he did not see any reason for changing the police decision.
So, the complaint was presented to CERD. K. R. C. claims that the State party has violated its obligations under article 2, subparagraph 1 (d), and 6, of the Convention in not effectively investigating the reported incident of racial discrimination. K. R. C. argues that following the decision of the CERD in L.K v. The Netherlands the States parties under these provisions have a positive obligation to take effective action against reported incidents of racial discrimination. Alleged cases of discrimination must be taken seriously and must be investigated thoroughly by the national authorities.
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination decided that the communication is inadmissible, as far as K. R. C. received a loan application form from Sparekassen Vestsjælland [Vestsjælland Savings Bank], containing the clause against which K. R. C. objects. However, K. R. C. did not send in the application form. Considering the petitioner’s lack of perseverance and notwithstanding the eventual deficiencies in the bank’s form, the act of refusal by the bank which, according to the petitioner, would have been contrary to the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, was not accomplished.