Law and Religion cases

  1. JvB case
    • Family in orthodox community - father transgender , left the community
    • Meeting father and ostracism from the community?
    • Judge: No, indirect meetings with father, cuz kids depended strongly on the community
    • Both parents before chose that kids shall be raised in the community with mother
  2. Dahlab case
    • Impact of teachers (kids 4-8) manifestation of religion (headscarf) on kiddos
    • Very easily influenced and headscarf is a strong manifestation
    • Rule comes from koran, which is hard to square with a principle of gender equality
    • Teachers should convey to kids the values of respect and tolerance in democratic society
  3. Achbita case
    • Company in Belgium doesnt allow religious symbols of any kind
    • Direct discrimination? No, no difference between two religious ppl
    • Indirect? No, policy of political neutrality = legitimate; 
    • Pursued in a consisten and systematic manner
    • Appropriate and necessary?
  4. Egenberger case
    • Job - requirement that a candidate should be a member of specific church
    • Emplyer can authoritatively determine whether adherence of applicant to a spec. religon by reason of the nature of the activities or the context in which they re carried out constitutes genuine, legitimate, justified occupational req.
    • ^having regard to the employer's / church's ethos
    • It must be possible for such a balancing act to be reviewed by an independent authority, ultimately a national court
    • =assertion has to be capable of effective judicial review
    • To make sure that criteria laid down on striking a balance between possibly competing rights were satisfied
  5. JQ vs IR
    • Roman Catholic Head of Internal Med Dep
    • Divorce > remarried in civil ceremony, but first marriage not annuled
    • Fired cuz infringed duty of loyalty from employment contract (loyalty to ethos of institution)
    • National cour should satisfy itself that the religon or belief req was a genuine, legitimate, justifed req in light of the ethos 
    • Was KK's approach on marriage necessary for promiton of institution's ethos?
  6. Buscarini vs San Marion
    • Oath on gospels etc - not acceptable, parliamentarians should express different views of society
    • Imposing such a req of oath couldn't be necessary
  7. Kimlya v Russia
    • Church of scientology - is it a religion?
    • We dont define religion 
    • If there is no consensus in Europe whether certain org is a church > we r subsidiary = we can rely on position of domestic authorities
  8. Valsamis vs Greece
    • Kids jehovas witnesses punished for not attending parades commemoration countrys national day cuz of their believe (pacifist)
    • The parade in fact public celebration of democracy, hr etc - even if there was military represent, not offending applicants pacifist convictions
  9. Organisation from Brazil vs Netherlands
    • Using DMT to trip during sacrament
    • DMT seized cuz illegal during to specific regulation - an cause hallucinations and even more severe stuff
    • Refuse to return drug > couldnt perform manifestaion > was it unjustified interference with freedom?
    • Well k, it was an interference but was it illegitimate?
    • Prescribed by law? Opium law, yes
    • Legitimate am? Protect public order and public health, ye
    • Necessary? Restrictions on practices can be justified for protection of health cuz we know the effects = proportional 
  10. Kosteski vs FYROM
    • Skipped work twice in a year, said he's a muslim
    • But he ignored all the muslim tenats + he was celebrating all christian holidays before
    • Not legitimate - cant see sincerity of his adherence to islam
    • Its not incompatible with art. 9 to check some facts before granting some1 a privilege
  11. Sahin vs Turkey
    • 1998 - rule at Istanbul Uni forbidding headscarfs
    • Girl wen to uni and was forbid t wear it
    • She should have known - cuz it was clear to her that uni had such policy
    • Margin of appreciation - necessary in democratic society
  12. Lautsi vs Italy
    • Women angry that there r crucifixes in classrooms when she wanted to raise her children in principle of secualrity
    • At the begining violation, cuz negative right to freedom from religion
    • Needs special protection when a person in a situation where cant extract themselves if not making disproportionate efforts and sacrifices
    • But Grand chamber then! No violation
    • Wide margin - there is no consensus in eu
    • Didnt lead to a form of indoctrination; crucifix isnot enough to say its indoctrinating
    • Cultural expression - symbolized principles and values which formed the foundation of democracy and western civilization
    • Passive symbol - no influence; subjective feeling alone here not enough to constitute an actual violation
  13. Eweida vs UK
    • British airways employee wanted to wear a cross around neck - but forbidden cuz corporate image
    • Corporate image isnt enough of a reason to prevail
    • Nurse in geriatric - same story, but here violation
    • Protection of health and safety of haspital ward is a reason to prevail
  14. Lachiri v Belgium
    • Applicant excluded from courtroom cuz refused to take off her hijab
    • Violation - restriction of a right to manifest religion
    • Pursued legitimate aim - protecting public order
    • But no link between the aim and the restriction, cuz applicant's conduct wasnt disrespectful
  15. Kose vs Turkey
    • Ban on children wearing headscarves in public schools
    • Measure reasonable - applicable to ALL children = no discrimination
    • Proportionate to the aim of preventing disorder and protecting rights of others
  16. Dogru vs France + Kervanci v France
    Children forbidden to attend PE with headscarves - health and safety reasons
  17. RR v Poland
    • Unborn suffering from severe genetic abnormality 
    • Deliberately denied timely access to genetic tests to which she was entitled cuz doc opposed to abortion
    • By time of tests - expired legal limit
    • Violation of art. 3 - inhuman and degrad treat
    • Treated shabbily
    • No effective mechanisms in PL
    • States were obliged to organise health servies to ensure effective exercise of freedom of conscience
  18. VO v France
    • Mixed up names of patients
    • Doc removed non existent coil from uterus, damagin unborn child - mother says manslaughter
    • French CC - doctor innocent as fetus was not viable, not human person
    • Decision - art. 2 to unborns? + criminal penalties to homicide unintent.?
    • 1 question ignored xd
    • No need for criminal law remedy - remedies already existed allowing app to proved med neglig and seek compensation
  19. Evans vs UK - rt
    • IVF with partner before removing ovaries
    • embryos storaged; relationship ended; withdrew consent for use of embryos
    • National laws - destoy eggs
    • She'd never have children
    • No violations; margin of apprec.
  20. Gard vs UK
    • Baby has rare fatal gen disease
    • Hospital wanted decl from domest courts if its lawful to stop artifi ventilation - kill
    • Parents asked court to consider if its in best interest of their son to undergo experimental treatment in usa
    • Court - lawful for hospital to withdraw sustainment - harm if suffer prolonged
    • Experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit
    • Judge ordered to withdraw procedure
  21. Pretty vs UK
    Right to life cannot have negative dimension as a right to die
  22. Giniewski v France
    • Journalsit criticised JPII's encyclical - defamated christian community?
    • View expressed as a historian
    • Not gratuitously offensive or insulting - not inciting disrespect or hatred
  23. Kikkinakis v Greece
    • Jehovahs witnesses called on their neighbour to discuss religious matters
    • ^ fell under art 9, bearing of Christian Witness
  24. Larissis v Greece
    • Officer of Greek army had exploited his position of authority over subordinates to convert em
    • Violation
Card Set
Law and Religion cases