It depends on where u look at the definition but generally speaking the lawyers are looking into we have two abusers Turkey and France and the idea is there must be consequences to some extent, legal, that could lead to the invalidation by the Court of judicial decisions made in the two incriminated states regarding the individuals that belongs to native nations or national minorities denied all or part of the legal provisions the FCNM and the ECRML provide to protect their interests (ie FCNM part of the Human Rights convention section 1 article 1. Examining if these legal provisions may or may not have played a determining role in the initial judicial decision is irrelevant.
Not sure it is complicated system of state redistribution budget to cities where it is alleged the national minorities are deliberately discriminated getting in some cases up to less than 50% of what Immigrants or Immigrants descent get. The average looks to show they could well be right. Although the state argues they are no ethnic discrimination against national minorities, the amounts redistributed (per individual) is based on cities size not racially or ethnically determined. It remains to be seen but clearly the budget policies results show some ethnic group are disadvantaged which in itself is sufficient to look at the legal consequences.