|
|
21 March – International Day against Racial Discrimination The main judgments of the European Court of Human Rights - Discrimination In order to mark the 60th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Council of Europe is, throughout 2010, highlighting the Court's case-law and its impact on legislative developments in Europe. The following judgments serve as just a few examples of the Court´s judgments dealing with discrimination. Article 14 of the Convention guarantees the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. The first case under Article 14 ever to be examined by the Court on 23 July 1968 was the case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" v. Belgium(“Belgian linguistics case”) – concerns an issue that still resonates today. The applicants, French-speaking residents of the Flemish part of Belgium and of the Brussels periphery, wanted their children to be educated in French. They claimed that various aspects of the Belgian legislation governing the use of languages in schools were inconsistent with the Convention. The Court also heard cases related to distinctions existing under national laws between legitimate and illegitimate children (for example, in their inheritance rights) and has in principle held such distinctions to be contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. Examples include Marckx v. Belgium, no. 6833/74 (13 June 1979), Inze v. Austria, no. 8695/79 (28 October 1987), and Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95 (3 October 2000). The Court has issued judgments related to discrimination and employment. In Gaygusuz v. Austria no. 17371/90 (16 September 1996), the applicant, a Turkish national lawfully residing in Austria, had paid regular contributions to an unemployment fund. After he was declared unfit to work, he was refused payment of an emergency assistance because he did not have Austrian citizenship. The Court found that such a difference in treatment lacked any “objective and reasonable justification” and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 14. Applicants can complain under Article 14 of discrimination based on their sexual orientation. In E.B. v. France [GC] no. 43546/02 (22 January 2008), the applicant had lived in a stable homosexual relationship and requested authorisation for adoption. Her request was dismissed, as were her subsequent appeals, among other reasons, “having regard to her lifestyle”. The Court noted that once domestic law provided for the possibility of adoption by a single parent, it necessarily also opened up the possibility of adoption by a single homosexual. Domestic violence is also an Article 14 issue, as seen in Opuz v. Turkey no. 33401/02 (9 June 2009). The applicant and her mother were victims of a series of violent assaults by the applicant’s husband. The incidents and the women’s fears for their lives had been repeatedly brought to the authorities’ attention and although criminal proceedings had been brought against the husband for a range of offences, they were discontinued after the women withdrew their complaints. The violence culminated in a fatal shooting of the applicant’s mother, resulting in the husband’s conviction to life imprisonment. The applicant produced unchallenged data to show that the domestic violence affected mainly women and that there existed a general judicial passivity in Turkey in prosecuting such violence. The Court found a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Discrimination on the ground of ethnic origin is also addressed by the Convention. In Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC] nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06 (22 December 2009), the applicants – both citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina holding prominent public positions – are respectively of Roma and Jewish origin. Under the 1995 Constitution, they were ineligible to stand for election to the State presidency and the upper chamber of the Parliament because they did not belong to one of the three “constituent peoples” of that country (Bosniacs, Croats or Serbs). The applicants complained that, despite possessing experience comparable to the highest elected officials in the country, they were prevented by the Constitution from being candidates for such posts solely on the grounds of their ethnic origin. The Court found a violation of Article 14. It also – for the first time examining a case under Protocol 12 – found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination) in respect of presidential elections. Contact:Council of Europe Press Office Tel. +33 (0) 388 41 25 60 e-mail: [email protected] Updated: March 2010 |
