-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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 a genuine, legitimate, justified occupational req.^having regard to the employer's / church's ethosIt 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 reviewTo make sure that criteria laid down on striking a balance between possibly competing rights were satisfied
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Dogru vs France + Kervanci v France
Children forbidden to attend PE with headscarves - health and safety reasons
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Pretty vs UK
Right to life cannot have negative dimension as a right to die
-
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
-
Kikkinakis v Greece
- Jehovahs witnesses called on their neighbour to discuss religious matters
- ^ fell under art 9, bearing of Christian Witness
-
Larissis v Greece
- Officer of Greek army had exploited his position of authority over subordinates to convert em
- Violation
|
|
