Tag Archives: Court: European Court of Human Rights

BBC: “The Greek Orthodox Church is urging Christians across Europe to unite in an appeal against a ban on crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.”

CNA: “A number of Italian officials have responded to the ruling by the European Human Rights Court that ordered schools in Italy to remove crucifixes from the classrooms by taking unprecedented measures to preserve the Christian symbol.”

JURIST: “Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Friday that Italy is not bound by last week’s European Court of Human Rights (EHCR) ruling that displaying crucifixes in a public school classroom violates the European Convention on Human Rights.”

LifeSiteNews: “The recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemning the display of crucifixes in Italian public schools could result in the removal of all public displays of a Christian origin in all public buildings of Europe under the newly passed Lisbon Treaty, a British legal expert has warned.”

George Letsas, Is There a Right not to be Offended in One’s Religious Beliefs? (June 1, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1500291

“The paper scrutinizes the normative claim that the legal right to freedom of religion requires respect for the religious convictions of believers when expressing oneself in public; or, put differently, the claim that there is a right not to be offended in one’s religious beliefs by the public expression of the views of others. This claim has been endorsed by the European Court of Human Rights in its judicial reasoning and is popular with many courts in Europe when reviewing criminal legislation that prohibits blasphemy, religious hate speech, or the disparaging of religious doctrines.”

Independent.ie: “. . . this court is using the Convention on Human Rights as a fig-leaf to justify its secularist objection to religion per se.”

Reuters: “Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi said on Wednesday a European Court of Human Rights ruling that called for crucifixes to be removed from Italian classrooms was a nonsensical attempt to deny Europe’s Christian roots.”

Finding Dulcinea: “The ECHR, headquartered in Strasbourg, France, was established in 1959 to supervise enforcement of the European Convention on Human Rights, drafted in 1950 by the Council of Europe . . . Member states [including Italy], by ratifying the Convention and its protocols, have committed to offering their citizens the rights provided by the Convention, and ‘have undertaken to “abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they are parties” (Article 46 paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights).’”

Breitbart (AP): “The Vatican has denounced a ruling by the European court of human rights that said the display of crucifixes in Italian public schools violates religious and educational freedoms.”

“Europe’s court of human rights ruled Tuesday the display of crucifixes in Italian public schools violates religious and education freedoms under the continent’s rights convention.”

Religion Clause Blog: “In different parts of the world this week, courts were examining the question of conscientious objector exemptions from military service . . . ”

San Francisco Bay Times: “The European Court of Human Rights has combined cases stemming from Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov’s bans on gay-pride events in 2006, 2007 and 2008, and instructed Russian authorities to file a response by Jan. 20.”

Associated Press: “Russia’s ban on the Church of Scientology is illegal, the European Court of Human Rights said Thursday in a binding ruling . . . The Church of Scientology of Russia said the ruling “sets another important precedent to protect the rights of all other religious communities in Europe,” according to a statement from spokeswoman Nina de Kastro.”

Nicolette M. Priaulx, Testing the Margin of Appreciation: Therapeutic Abortion, Reproductive Rights and the Intriguing Case of Tysiąc v. Poland (September 7, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1469456

“In Tysiac v. Poland (2007) the Strasbourg Court ruled in favour of the applicant (who had been denied access to a lawful therapeutic abortion), finding that Poland had failed to comply with its positive obligations to safeguard the applicant’s right to effective respect for her private life under Article 8. Exploring this controversial judgment, the author assesses the claim that Tysiac marks a ‘radical shift’ on the part of the Court in creating a ‘right to abortion’. The author argues that while Tysiac makes an important addition to abortion jurisprudence, the notion it founds such a ‘right’ greatly overstates the legal significance of this case.”

Daniel Augenstein, Religious Pluralism Versus Social Cohesion? Normative Fault Lines of Human Rights Jurisprudence in Europe (September 15, 2009). U. of Edinburgh School of Law Working Paper No. 2009-23. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1473893

“This essay explores the tension between religious pluralism and social cohesion in European human rights jurisprudence. Comparing the German, French, and British interpretation of the ‘social cohesion limitation’ of freedom of religion I argue that, at the national level, concerns for social cohesion stem from negative and defensive societal attitudes towards religious diversity that are difficult to reconcile with the normative premises of religious pluralism in a democratic society.”

The Power of Symbols and Symbols as Power: Secularism and Religion as Guarantors of Cultural Convergence
Susanna Mancini, 30 Cardozo L. Rev. 2629 (2009)

“In the following pages, I will analyze cases decided and laws adopted in various jurisdictions with sharply different models for managing the relationship between the state and religion: Italy, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. I will also consider the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which is invested with the task of striking a balance between unity and diversity in 47 nations with deeply divergent constitutional traditions. Despite the differences among all of these systems, all cases rely more or less explicitly on a dichotomous construction of the relationship between Christianity and Islam, according to which the former–to be sure in a secularized form–is projected as a central component of Western civilization, while the latter is cast as a threatening ‘other.’”

European Union Law: “A new report by Chatham House claims that the European Court of Human Rights is in real crisis, with over 50000 cases filed in 2008, as compared to 43000 cases for the first 43 years of existence of the Court.”

WorldNetDaily: “The case against an American arrested for talking in public about Jesus in Norway has been appealed to the European Court of Human Rights by an attorney who says the resulting decision will have a major impact on the rights of freedom and expression.”

Buffalo Human Rights Law Review: “When the liberty to freely express oneself is at odds with another’s right to freedom of religion, we are confronted with the classic dilemma of choosing between two equally fundamental, constitutionally and internationally protected rights. The contours of the said two rights however, are far from clear. Whilst freedom of expression is not an absolute right, its limits are controversial. Equally, while it is undisputed that freedom of religion is an internationally protected human right enshrined in various international instruments, there is no comprehensive international treaty which addresses as its subject the content and extent of the right of freedom of religion, thus it is uncertain whether it entails the right to have one’s religious faith and symbols protected from insult.”

LifeSiteNews reports: “One of the Republic of Ireland’s leading pro-life lobby groups has warned Irish voters that a vote for the Lisbon Treaty will be a vote against the country’s constitutional protections for the unborn.”

Hilary White reports at LifeSiteNews: “‘This case could be the Roe v. Wade of Europe, so its importance should not be underestimated,’ said Roger Kiska of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the public-interest legal alliance that is acting to protect the existing law.”

“‘No one should be allowed to decide that an innocent life is worthless. Ireland’s constitutional amendment defending innocent life is under attack, and now the stakes have just gotten higher,’ [Kiska] said. ‘With the case moving to the Grand Chamber, the ramifications of the decision that is eventually reached in the case are massive.’”

Indiana Law Journal: “This complexity stems from several factors, including the text of Article 10 itself. The text defines several components of the ‘right to freedom of expression,’ including the freedom to express one’s opinion, the freedom to communicate information, and the freedom to receive information. In other words, the Convention upholds several ‘freedoms of speech,’ not just one. The second factor of complexity is its cross-border character, even though the Strasbourg Court and the previous Commission have succeeded in limiting the extraterritorial effect of their sphere of control relative to Article 10.”

OnMedica reports: “The House of Lords will today start a two-day hearing to consider the law on assisted suicide . . . The two-day hearing represents Ms Purdy’s last chance in the UK legal system. If she loses the case, her final option would be to go to the European Court of Human Rights.”

Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems: “This Article examines a cross-section of the family-law issues that have come before the ECHR and compares that court’s resolution of those issues, when appropriate, to U.S. jurisprudence. This Article suggests that the ECHR has not itself defined what constitutes a family. Instead, the individuals, by living together, define a family unit. The ECHR tends in practice and in its jurisprudence to accord legal protections to those self-defined family units. Although the court has not explicitly announced this as a formal rule, it has nonetheless deferred to families’ self-definition in case after case. If U.S. courts applied such an analysis, a good number of family-law decisions would be impacted. Thus, it is quite useful to consider the ECHR decisions on similar family-law issues.”

The Christian Institute: “ADF lawyer Roger Kiska said: ‘It’s pretty clear that states are not allowed to indoctrinate their children, and that parents have the ultimate right in raising their child according to their own religious and philosophical convictions.’”

“‘Parents, not the government, are the ones ultimately responsible for making educational choices for their children,’ Kiska said. ‘These parents were well within their rights under the European Convention of Human Rights to opt to teach their children a view of sexuality that is in accord with their own religious beliefs . . .

SSRN: “The issue of divergence in human rights protection (adjudication) between the law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European Community/Union (EC/EU) law has been in the centre of academic attention for decades. The position that there are instances of divergence and there is a risk of divergence between the two legal orders has gained authority in academic discourse despite the fact that its premises were subject to challenges on numerous occasions.”

Christian Today: “‘They did a lot of research on the governing law in Europe as well as international law coming from the United Nations documents, and they determined that since this was so contrary to their faith and that it would do damage to their ability as parents to raise their children according to that faith, that they would teach their child at home on this issue and only this issue.’”

Howard Law Journal: ” The first section of this article describes the ECHR’s expansive use of a “European consensus” standard in determining whether particular national government actions violate the European Convention on Human Rights, and I draw two important lessons from the ECHR’s experience. First, the ECHR cannot apply a consensus standard that is clear, predictable, and workable. Despite hundreds of cases and over thirty years of experience, the ECHR still has not made clear what a European consensus is, or even how one would identify the consensus if it existed. Second, the ECHR should not try to apply such a standard. The ECHR’s long experience demonstrates that the European consensus standard endangers both human rights and the rule of law.”

LifeSiteNews: “Three anonymous women who filed a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the Irish government’s ban on abortion, may soon have their day in court. The human rights court is reportedly poised to make a judgment on the admissibility and merits of the case . . . The Irish Times reports that groups which are supporting the Irish government’s restrictions on abortion at the Strasbourg hearings include the Pro-Life Campaign, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the European Centre for Law and Justice – on behalf of Kathy Sinnott MEP – and the Alliance Defense Fund.”

ACLJ: Our international affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) has just filed a critical amicus brief before the European Court of Human Rights in support of two applications concerning Iranian converts to Christianity who have been denied asylum by the Turkish government.

WorldNetDaily: “‘Parents, not the government, are the ones ultimately responsible for making educational choices for their children,’ Kiska said. ‘These parents were well within their rights under the European Convention of Human Rights to opt to teach their children a view of sexuality that is in accordance with their own religious beliefs instead of sending them to a class and stageplay they found objectionable. ‘These types of cases are crucial battles in the effort to keep bad decisions overseas from being relied upon by activists who attack parental rights in America,’ he said.”

“Parents, not the government, are the ones ultimately responsible for making educational choices for their children,” said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska.

LifeNews reports: “The government of Ireland has filed legal papers with the European Court of Human Rights in defense of it ban on most abortions . . . In November, the Family Research Council, represented by the Alliance Defense Fund pro-life law firm, filed papers supporting the ban with the court.”

Irish Times: “Groups which have sent in observations defending restrictions on abortion include the Pro-Life Campaign, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and the European Centre for Law and Justice – on behalf of Kathy Sinnott MEP – and the Alliance Defense Fund.”

A dissenting synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church that had its legal personality stripped and its property seized by the socialist government of Bulgaria has won a decisive victory at the European Court of Human Rights.

LifeSiteNews: “The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the Portuguese government broke the law in preventing the Dutch abortion boat from landing when it attempted to enter Portuguese territory in 2004, when abortion was against the law . …

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the Portuguese government broke the law in preventing the Dutch abortion boat from landing when it attempted to enter Portuguese territory in 2004, when abortion was against the law. Abortionist and foundress of the “Women on Waves” project, Rebecca Gomperts, said she is delighted with the finding. “We shall use the judgment for new campaigns outside Europe,” she said.

Michael D. Goldhaber writes in the American Lawyer: Speaking Wednesday at a conference organized by the Institute of American and Talmudic Law, which is affiliated with the Chabad Lubavitch movement, Scalia argued that, under a proper conception of the judicial …

Yet as abortion rights go international, so does the anti-abortion backlash. The globalization of the abortion wars creates some of the same tensions—between universal human rights and community mores, between majority rule and the protection of individual liberty—as Roe v. Wade, on a larger scale.

ACLJ: The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) said today it was very pleased by an unanimous decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling that Bulgaria violated the religious freedom of the Holy Synod of the …

The Religion Clause Blog reports: “In Dogru v. France, (ECHR, Dec. 4, 2008) [in English, Word.doc] and Kervanci v. France, (ECHR, Dec. 4, 2008) [in French, Word.doc], the European Court of Human Rights upheld French restrictions on Muslim girls wearing Islamic head scarves …

The case raises important issues in relation to religious freedom, schools and their duties under the Human Rights Act (HRA). This article seeks to highlight the extent to which the new legislation has led schools to become increasingly involved in religious matters and discusses some of the problems that may be associated with this approach.

Three pro-life organizations filed a brief Friday with the European Court of Human Rights in defense of Ireland’s ban on abortion. In September, the court granted the Family Research Council, represented by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, the opportunity to defend the ban jointly with two other pro-life organizations.

This paper critically examines three key recent cases of superior courts concerning restrictions on religious symbols…

This Handbook deals with the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) under that article.

“For years, the European Court of Human Rights, established to uphold rights to life, privacy, freedom of religion and the like, has essentially turned a blind eye to Ireland’s abortion laws, considered among the most restrictive in Europe.”

ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull: “This case is not only pivotal to Europe; it’s pivotal to America . . . This case could be the Roe v. Wade of Europe.”

The European Court of Human Rights has agreed to hear a challenge by three Irish women to the Government’s ban on abortion on the basis that their rights were denied by being forced to terminate their pregnancies outside the State.

ThisisLondon reports: So now 36-year-old Miss Stibbe and the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories have filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. . . . insists that the chimp needs legal standing so a guardian …

The question is, however, whether the distinction we make between classic fundamental rights and other interests is always reasonable and if it is justifiable to attach far-reaching judicial consequences to the distinction.

Homeschoolers in Germany suffered another loss today. Germany bans homeschooling, a ban possibly dating back to the Third Reich. See Home School Legal Defense Association E-lert Service, Sep. 22. Germany enforces the ban vigorously, prosecuting persistent homeschoolers with jail and …