Tag Archives: Court: European Court of Human Rights

Annicchino, Pasquale, The Conflict between the Autonomy of Religious Groups and Other Fundamental Rights: Recent Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and of the European Court of Human Rights (June 2, 2013). Quaderni di Diritto e Politica Ecclesiastica 1, 2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2273185 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2273185

UKConstitutionallaw.org: Much progress has been made following the agreement of the Brighton Declaration on reforms to the working practices of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).  The Brighton Ministerial Conference in April 2012 prompted renewed reflections on the role and legitimacy of the ECtHR itself.

Law and Religion UK: The Chamber of the ECtHR to which the application in S.A.S. v France (No. 43835/11) was assigned has relinquished jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber, neither party having objected to relinquishment.

Turtle Bay and Beyond: Through the judgment of Alda Gross v. Switzerland (No. 67810/10), given on 14^th May 2013, the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights completed the edification of an individual right to assisted suicide (that is to say, consenting euthanasia) in the name of the right to the respect of private life guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Christian Concern: The Grand Chamber of the Council of Europe has rejected a request for referral from three UK Christians, prompting serious concerns over legal protections for Christians in Britain.

Christian Institute: Lillian Ladele was claiming religious discrimination after being forced out of her Islington Council job over her conscientious objection to same-sex civil partnerships. She was seeking to appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights after losing a 5-2 majority decision in January.

Irish Times: Abortion legislation is incompatible with the core values of human rights, Prof William Binchy, legal adviser to the anti-abortion campaign, has told the Oireachtas committee. He said those values respected and protected the equal dignity and worth of every human being.

Paul Coleman at Bell Towers: For several decades the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has taken an evolutive approach to the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the notion that the Convention is “a living instrument” now appears to be uncontested. Nevertheless, the Court’s evolutive approach towards assisted suicide and euthanasia is remarkable.

AP: An elderly Swiss woman who would rather end her life now than decline further in health found sympathy Tuesday from the European Court of Human Rights, which called on the Swiss to clarify their laws on so-called passive assisted suicide. | Gross v. Switzerland, 67810/10

One News Now: Roger Kiska, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, explains the state’s point of view. “They’re absolutely oppressive with regard to parental rights. They believe that the only duty of the parents basically is to give birth and then the child belongs to the state,” he tells American Family News. “So we had known all along that this was going to be something that would have to be taken from Sweden and brought to the European level.” Kiska says the remaining option is to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, which has jurisdiction over Sweden. [more]

Christian Concern: In an important development for the protection of ‘freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has passed a resolution calling on its 47 Member states to . . .

Law & Religion UK: The matter is set to return to the Europe following a reference by the High Court in International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents[2013] EWHC 807 (Ch) (17 April 2013)in relation to an appeal by ISCC against a decision that the inventions disclosed in two of its patent applications relating to human stem cells were excluded from patentability. The issues raised by the appeal are summarized in paragraph 3 of the judgement, which states:

Christian Concern: A special event has been held at the Council of Europe in relation to two UK Christians who are seeking a referral to the Grand Chamber in their religious freedom cases at the European Court of Human Rights.

Christian Concern: Three Christians whose cases were rejected by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) earlier this year have requested a referral to the Grand Chamber.

Boston Globe: Hungary’s parliament has overwhelmingly approved a modified plan to restrict the display of Nazi and communist symbols such as the swastika and red star.

Alliance Defending Freedom and the Home School Legal Defense Association have asked the European Court of Human Rights to hear the case of a Swedish family heavily fined for home-schooling their daughter.

Scholars have filed more than 50 amicus briefs with the Supreme Court urging it to uphold California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While the media seems intent on ignoring these briefs and hyping the briefs on the other side, the sheer number and quality of the briefs in defense of laws recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a woman is impressive.

Belfast Telegraph: A legal victory for a lesbian couple who want to jointly raise one partner’s child could lead to same sex couples in Northern Ireland being allowed to adopt, a gay rights activist has said.

Religion Clause Blog: Britain’s Equality and Human Right Commission this month issued two publications designed to give guidance on accommodating religion and belief in the workplace, in light of last month’s judgments on the issue handed down by the European Court of Human Rights.

Religion Clause Blog: In Juma Mosque Congregation v. Azerbaijan, (ECHR, Feb. 8, 2013), the congregation sued complaining that the government refused to re-register the congregation unless it subordinated itself to the Caucuses Muslim Board.

GoErie.com: There is no doubt that religious liberty is under serious threat in Britain, particularly for Christians,” says Paul Coleman, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which was involved with cases before the European human-rights court. “In the language of ‘equality,’ ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance,’ secularists have found a way to sideline and marginalize Christianity, successfully framing the moral beliefs of Christians as ‘intolerant’ or ‘discriminatory’ and unworthy of protection. Unless a true balance is found, where Christians can be accommodated in the public square and not shut out, we will see many more cases like the four before the ECHR in the headlines.”

Christian Post: For the first time ever, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the United Kingdom on a matter of religious liberty involving a Christian woman who worked for British Airways.

Rick Garnett at Mirror of Justice: Over at the site of the (excellent) Religious Freedom Project (a project of Georgetown’s Berkley Center), Roger Trigg has a very informative essay called “Canary in the Coal Mine,” in which he discusses four recent decisions handed down by the European Court of Human Rights. Here is his concluding paragraph . . .

Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe: We thank the Christian Legal Centre (www.christianconcern.com/christian-legal-centre) and Alliance Defending Freedom (www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org) for their detailed analyses of the cases and the text elements provided in this text. We also thank the European Center for Law and Justice (www.eclj.org) for their publications.

Paul Coleman appeared on the Zeb Bell Show to discuss recent EU Religious Freedom rulings. | MP3 audio 12:02 mins

Marilyn Stowe Blog: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has upheld a claim by a Croatian woman that her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were breached when her newborn child was removed without her consent.

Jean Kathryn Lopez at National Review and Troy Messenger: “There is no doubt that religious liberty is under serious threat in Britain, particularly for Christians,” says Paul Coleman, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, which was involved with cases before the European human-rights court. “In the language of ‘equality,’ ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance,’ secularists have found a way to sideline and marginalize Christianity, successfully framing the moral beliefs of Christians as ‘intolerant’ or ‘discriminatory’ and unworthy of protection. Unless a true balance is found, where Christians can be accommodated in the public square and not shut out, we will see many more cases like the four before the ECHR in the headlines.”

Paul Coleman on the Drew Mariani Show to discuss the recent EU rulings. | MP3 audio 17:32 mins

The New American: Roger Kiska, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which assisted in the cases of all four of the individuals, reacted to the rulings, pointing out that “Christian employees should not be singled out for discrimination. No one should have to hide their faith or act contrary to it. That type of intolerance is inconsistent with the values of civilized communities.” Kiska called the victory for Eweida “a significant step forward for religious freedom in Europe. However, it is extremely disappointing that the court ruled against the three other applicants. We hope they will appeal that decision to the Grand Chamber of the court.”

Christian Institute: The Daily Mail has said rulings against two Christians in Europe yesterday add to warnings that Churches could be sued for refusing to conduct same-sex marriages if they’re made legal. The paper says in its editorial, “how depressingly predictable that the court found the rights of a sexual minority trumped those of Christians.

Religion Clause Blog: The Chamber judgment can be appealed to the Court’s 17-judge Grand Chamber. The Guardian reports on the decision, as does a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom.

EUObserver.com: Roger Kiska, senior legal counsel to the Alliance Defending Freedom, said that the “victory for one of the Christian applicants is a significant step forward for religious freedom in Europe.” However, he added that it was “extremely disappointing that the Court ruled against the three other applicants and it is hoped that they will appeal the decision to the Grand Chamber of the Court.”

Huffington Post (includes video): The U.S.-based Alliance Defending Freedom, which helped represent Eweida in British courts, said “Christian employees should not be singled out for discrimination. No one should have to hide their faith or act contrary to it.” The ADF called the other three rejections “extremely disappointing.”

Washington Post: The U.S.-based Alliance Defending Freedom, which helped represent Eweida in British courts, said “Christian employees should not be singled out for discrimination. No one should have to hide their faith or act contrary to it.” The ADF called the other three rejections “extremely disappointing.”

Washington Blade: The Religion News Service reported that Alliance Defending Freedom, an American anti-gay organization, said “Christian employees should not be singled out for discrimination,” but categorized the court’s decision to reject the other three cases as “extremely disappointing.

European Court defends right to wear cross but overrides Christian conscience in other cases

This post may be updated. Catholic Culture: Mixed religious-freedom rulings at European Court of Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that British Airways violated the European Convention of Human Rights in telling an employee in 2006 …

Christian Concern: All four cases relate to the extent of effective protection under the European Convention on Human Rights for the manifestation of Christian faith in the public sphere. Two of the cases (Chaplin and Eweida) relate to the visible wearing of a cross. The other cases (McFarlane and Ladele) relate to protection of Christian conscience in the professional arena.

The Spectator: A showdown between the government and the European Court of Human Rights over prisoner votes drew that bit closer today. The government hoped that having parliament vote to uphold a blanket ban on prisoners voting would buy it some time, as the European Court of Human Rights would then have to start examining the issue all over again.

Irish Times: The husband of the late Savita Halappanavar has decided to proceed with an application to the European Court of Human Rights.

LifeSiteNews: Ireland’s prime minister is reportedly facing a backlash from his own party over rumored plans to legalize abortion in the Republic . . . Taoiseach Enda Kenny is caught between strong public disapproval of abortion and opposition from his own backbench MPs and ministers on the one hand and pressure from Labour coalition partners who have legalisation as part of their party agenda.

Chicago Tribune: When I argued a case challenging Ireland’s ban on abortion before the European Court of Human Rights in 2009, I told the story of my client, “Ms. C,” who had been battling cancer when she became pregnant. Ms. C’s doctors in Ireland, where abortion is illegal and lifesaving abortion is largely unavailable, refused to provide her with even basic information about the risk that continuation of pregnancy posed to her life, and so she had no option but to travel to England to obtain an abortion.

Reuters: Italy has appealed a European Court of Human Rights ruling that it violated the rights of a couple carrying cystic fibrosis by preventing them from screening in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos, the Rome government said on Wednesday.

Center for Reproductive Rights: Today the European Court of Human Rights re-affirmed its recognition of involuntary sterilization of Romani women as a major human rights violation in its ruling in I.G. and Others v. Slovakia. In the significant decision, the court found that sterilization without prior full and informed consent violated the applicants’ right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment and their right to respect for private and family life. | Case of I.G and Others v. Slovakia

AP: The EU’s highest court ruled Tuesday that Hungary’s reduced retirement age for judges constituted unjustified discrimination on the grounds of age . . .

Turtle Bay and Beyond: While for many years the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has simply failed to protect unborn children against being murdered (the lead case here is the ignominious Vo v. France decision of 2004, where the Court explicitly recognised that the embryo “belongs to the human race”, but at the same expressed doubts as to whether it qualified as a “person”…) it is now trying to fabricate a “Right to Abortion”.

Wesley J. Smith at National Review: A just released European Court of Human Rights ruling appears to require Poland to squash the conscience rights of doctors who do not wish to be complicit in a legal abortion.

Polskie Radio: According to the [European Court of Human Rights] court, the case presented two violations of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, regarding “the determination of access to lawful abortion”and “the disclosure of the applicants’ personal data.”
The court stressed the difficulties of the girl “in obtaining access to an abortion, in particular due to the lack of a clear legal framework, procrastination of medical staff and also as a result of harassment.” | CASE OF P. AND S. v. POLAND

Religion Clause Blog: In Budimljansko-Niksicka v. Montenegro, (ECHR, Oct. 19, 2012), the European Court of Human Rights, in a Chamber judgment, rejected claims by a diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro that it was entitled to restitution for property formerly belonging to its churches and monasteries that was expropriated after World War II.

C-FAM: Pro-life groups in Ireland fear that recommendations from a panel of experts appointed by Irish Health Minister James Reilly would be the first steps to introduce legal abortion in Ireland. The minister is expected to issue new regulations following the recommendations of an expert panel set up in January as a response to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling in the case of A, B & C v. Ireland, from 2010.

NPR (AP): Unmarried and same-sex couples in Northern Ireland should be allowed to adopt children, a Belfast judge ruled Thursday, overturning a 1987 adoption law that discriminated against both groups . . . Belfast High Court Justice Seamus Treacy ruled that the law clearly violated European human rights laws on privacy and discrimination. | The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s Application [2012] NIQB 77

FORUM 18: A 19-year-old Jehovah’s Witness conscientious objector to compulsory military service yesterday (15 October) lodged an appeal against his imprisonment, Forum 18 News Service has learned. Fakhraddin Mirzayev was given a one-year prison sentence on 25 September by a court in Azerbaijan’s second city Gyanja [Gäncä]. “This is the first criminal prosecution of a Jehovah’s Witness conscientious objector in Azerbaijan since Farid Mammedov was imprisoned in September 2010,” Jehovah’s Witnesses told Forum 18. “Others have been investigated, but their cases were never referred to court.”

Piero Tozzi at C-FAM: European and American pro-life academics and practitioners gathered late last month at the University of Warsaw for a conference on the “Intellectual Foundations and Legal Means for the Protection of Human Life in the Prenatal Phase.” The event was under the High Honorary Patronage of Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess of Luxemburg, the Honorary Patronage by His Highness Paul, Duke of Oldenburg, and Poland’s Minister of Justice, Dr. Jaroslaw Gowin . . . One of the themes explored involved the interplay between domestic law and constitutions protective of life and transnationalist “soft law” norms, which are often cited by abortion activists as requiring abortion liberalization. Nikolas Nikas of the Bioethics Defense Fund introduced a panel on international law which featured Jane Adolphe of Ave Maria University, Stefano Gennarini of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM, publisher of the Friday Fax) and Alliance Defending Freedom’s Piero Tozzi.

Reuters: Patricia Casey’s views on abortion were formed at the age of 12 when she came across an image of what looked to her like a torn-apart baby – an aborted foetus.

Belfast Telegraph: A sexual health charity has challenged the Health Minister to issue guidance on abortion in Northern Ireland to health professionals immediately after the latest round in a legal battle. The Family Planning Association has won High Court permission to challenge the failure to issue new Government guidelines on abortion here.

Mauro Gatti, Autonomy of Religious Organisations in the European Convention of Human Rights and European Union Law, (Paper presented at the Conference ‘Fundamental Rights in Europe and China: Between Identities and Universalism’, Bologna, 28-29 May 2012).

Turtle Bay and Beyond: In a previous post, our friend Grégor Puppinck informed about a case currently pending before the European Court of Human Rights in which the petitioners, a lesbian couple from Austria, claim to have been victims of “discrimination” because the Austrian legislation does not allow homosexual adoption. As Grégor explains in more detail, one of the two applicants has a child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship; the father of that child is still alive, pays alimonies, and has no intention to renounce to his paternal rights. What is deeply disturbing about this case is not that every now and then there are people who file such frivolous and manifestly absurd applications, but that the Court decides to hear them.

Turtle Bay and Beyond: On 3rd October 2012, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights will hear a case of “homosexual adoption” concerning the impossibility for a woman to adopt the son of her female partner (X and others v. Austria, no. 19010/07). The two women consider it an infringement of their private life and discriminatory.

UK Human Rights Blog: The Ministry of Justice has published its annual report to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Government response to human rights judgments 2011–12. By signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK has committed to “abide by” judgments of the court. This commitment is monitored by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.

The Guardian: As the new academic year starts, let’s get back to basics. Which courts decide human rights cases, when, and by what rules?

Paul Coleman on the Zeb Bell Show to discuss this: Will Europe’s highest court respect religious freedom in workplace? | MP3 audio 15:43 mins

One News Now: Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Paul Coleman was there for the arguments involving the cases in which the courts in the U.K. “failed to respect religious freedom in the workplace.” “Two of them involve the right to wear a cross at work,” he tells OneNewsNow. “When other members of the workforce were given accommodations for their religious symbols — be it the Hijab or the Sikh turban — Christians were told they were not allowed to wear the cross.”

The Bourne Local: A Cabinet minister has insisted the Government was right to contest a European legal challenge over religious freedom after four British Christians including an Exeter nurse took their fight to the European Court of Human Rights.

Christian Concern: Government lawyers have told the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that Christians should “leave their religious beliefs at home or move to another job” when faced with a clash between the requirements of their faith and their employment . . . Paul Diamond, representing Christian Legal Centre clients Mrs Chaplin and Mr McFarlane, said: “These are real people, real lives, real damage suffered. There is no knowing where this will end as society moves in a secular direction. The situation in the UK is now critical.”

Religion Clause Blog: The European Court has issued a press release describing the cases, and has posted a webcast of the hearing.

BBC: Four British Christians who claim they lost their jobs as a result of discrimination against their beliefs are taking their cases to the European Court of Human Rights.

Christian Institute: The “Human Rights agenda” is in danger of becoming a new form of totalitarianism, according to a bishop in comments ahead of four religious liberty court cases.

Christian Institute (includes audio): The case of Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar from Islington who was disciplined because of her stance against civil partnerships, is in the European Court of Human Rights today.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys Paul Coleman and Roger Kiska will be available for media interviews Tuesday immediately following oral arguments at the European Court of Human Rights in four pivotal cases that involve religious freedom in the workplace.

The Christian Institute: Britain’s best-known legal journalist, Joshua Rozenberg, has previewed the case of Lillian Ladele which is being heard by the European Court of Human Rights next week. His preview has been published by the Law Society Gazette. You can read his article in full on their website.

Turtle Bay and Beyond: On 28 August 2012, the second section of the European Court of Human Rights issued its first judgment concerning access to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This technique of screening and selection of embryos conceived in vitro aims at giving birth to a child who is not suffering from a genetic disease. It stems from this judgment that access to PGD may de facto be considered a human right in Europe, a right indirectly guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. This judgment is not final; the Italian Government already announced that it will request the referral of the case before the Grand Chamber for reconsideration.

AP: The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Italy’s ban on screening embryos for disease before they are implanted in a womb has violated the rights of a couple whose first child was born with cystic fibrosis.

Opinion: Costa and Pavan v. Italy, 280812

Forbes: Ireland awaits a September report on its abortion laws by a European Court of Human Rights panel of experts at a time of rising political tensions over the issue and a backdrop of steep declines in the popularity of religion.

Jurist: The Court of Appeal of Singapore [official website] ruled [judgment, PDF] Tuesday that a man charged with gross indecency under a provision of the penal code criminalizing sexual acts between men can proceed with a constitutional challenge against the law in court . . .

Tommaso Virgili at the Legal Project: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), a supranational tribunal based in Strasbourg, France, which was set up in the framework of the Council of Europe, is increasingly determining important speech cases involving Islam-related topics. This Court’s jurisdiction covers alleged violations of human rights, as enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights, by the states-parties. Unlike cases in a European nation’s courts, a case before this court may be triggered either by individuals, provided that the latter have exhausted their domestic remedies, or by another state acting as a party. Technically, the ECHR is empowered to grant individuals more protection than they are legally entitled to enjoy based on their own states’ laws.