Mar 20, 2013 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ presented its views on corruption and the rule of law at a hearing of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of PACE, on 19 March.
The ICJ presentation, supported by a written submission, addressed in particular the importance of a strong and independent judiciary in combating corruption, and the need to prevent judicial corruption through legislative, organisational and educational measures that promote and support an independent and impartial judiciary.
The hearing, before the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, was in preparation for a report by the Committee on Corruption as a threat to the Rule of Law in Europe.
Corruption as a Threat to the Rule of Law (Full text, PDF)
Mar 18, 2013 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International presented a third party intervention in the case Al Nashiri v Romania before the European Court of Human Rights.
In the third party intervention, the ICJ and AI outlined developments on the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty as a rule of customary international law; on the knowledge imputable to Contracting Parties at relevant times; on the duty to investigate credible allegations of human rights violations and the right to truth; and on the evidential approach to enforced disappearances.
AlNashiri_v_Romania-ICJAIJointSubmission-ECtHR-final (download the third party intervention
Feb 25, 2013 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International presented additional observations in the case Al Nashiri v Poland before the European Court of Human Rights.
In their supplementary third party intervention, the ICJ and AI outlined developments in light of the case El-Masri v the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on enforced disappearances, on diplomatic representations in light of the Grand Chamber’s findings on responsibility for violations outside the jurisdiction, on the gross human rights violations that detainees previously held in the USA’s secret detention and rendition programme are currently enduring, and on relevance of the Grand Chamber’s observations in El-Masri in relation to any potential resort to ex parte materials and procedures.
Poland-ICJAI-SupplAmicusBrief-AlNashiri v Poland-legal submission-2013 (download the third party intervention)
Feb 19, 2013 | News
The European Court of Human Rights today ruled that an Austrian ban on same-sex second-parent adoption is discriminatory.
The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of X and Others v. Austria and ruled that Austria’s Civil Code discriminates against a partner in a same-sex relationship by making it legally impossible to adopt the biological child of the other partner while permitting second parent adoptions for unmarried heterosexual couples.
The organisations that provided written submissions in this case (FIDH, ICJ, ILGA-Europe, BAAF, NELFA, and ECSOL) welcome this judgment and consider it a landmark judgment applying the European Court of Human Rights’ case law on equal treatment of unmarried couples to same-sex couples applying for second-parent adoption.
Children in same-sex families are highly vulnerable due to a lack of legal recognition and their inability to establish legal links to both of their parents.
Currently, second-parent adoption is possible in 11 European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Great Britain. New legislation that would allow it is planned in France, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Moreover, as a result of the Court’s judgment, it would follow that the legislation of Austria, Andorra, parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Liechtenstein, Portugal and Romania should be amended to allow same-sex couples to apply for second-parent adoption, because these countries already permit unmarried heterosexual couples to do so.
Martin K.I. Christensen, Co-Chair of ILGA-Europe’s Executive Board:
“This is a very significant and important victory for rainbow families in Europe. We hope that this judgment will pave the way towards the removal of the remaining legal barriers for these families in Europe. The lack of recognition and the inability for partners in same-sex families to establish legal links to their children is not only discriminatory and creates a number of legal uncertainties, but also has a profound and detrimental impact on the everyday lives of these families and the wellbeing of the children in those families. The principle of the best interests of the child needs to be upheld without exception.”
Alli Jernow, Senior Legal Adviser, International Commission of Jurists, stated:
“With today’s decision, the Court clearly asserts that families are families, regardless of the sex of the parents, and that barriers to legal recognition and protection based on sexual orientation serve the interests of neither parents nor children.”
Souhayr Belhassen, President of FIDH, said:
“The Court recognised the right of a partner in same-sex couple to adopt another partner’s biological child when such adoptions are available for heterosexual couples. This is an important step forward towards the application of the principle of non-discrimination based on the sexual orientation and strengthening legal security and certainty for children. This ruling should guide not only domestic courts, but also the legislator in European states that have not yet amended their legislation in that direction”.
Juha Jämsä, the Vice-President of NELFA, said:
“This is an important day for European LGBT families. We feel very hopeful that this case will lead to our children’s rights gaining better recognition throughout Europe. No group of children should be discriminated against because of their parents’ sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression”
Jan 15, 2013 | News
In particular, the Court recognizes that preventing sexual orientation discrimination is an important and legitimate purpose that justifies restrictions on freedom of religion.
In its judgment in Eweida and Others v. United Kingdom, issued on 15 January, the European Court of Human Rights affirmed that the right to act in accordance with one’s religion may be limited in order to protect others from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The ICJ, the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) welcome this decision.
Two of the four applications that were considered jointly in Eweida and Others concerned employees who refused to provide services to same-sex couples because of their personal religious beliefs.
The other two applications concerned employer-imposed restrictions on wearing visible crosses at work.
Lillian Ladele was employed by the London Borough of Islington as a marriage registrar.
She had refused to perform same-sex civil partnership ceremonies as part of her job because she believed that civil partnerships were equivalent to marriage and that same-sex unions were contrary to God’s will.
Following her refusal, she was disciplined and ultimately dismissed.
The Court held that Ladele’s employer’s decision not to make an exception for her religious beliefs was both legitimate and proportionate, in light of the Court’s own case-law concerning the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the need for same-sex couples to have legal recognition and protection of their relationships.
There was thus no violation of her right to be free from discrimination on the basis of religion.
Gary McFarlane was employed by Relate Federation, a private organisation providing sex therapy and relationship counselling.
He objected to treating same-sex couples and was dismissed.
The Court found that the right balance had been struck between McFarlane’s right to manifest his religious belief and “the employer’s interest in securing the rights of others.”
There was no violation of his right to freedom of religion, either separately or in conjunction with the right to be free from discrimination.
“Article 9 of the European Convention protects the right to manifest one’s religion in public, but this right is not unlimited,” stated Alli Jernow, Senior Legal Advisor of the International Commission of Jurists. “With today’s judgment, the Court upholds the importance of protecting others from discrimination.”
“This is a very timely decision, and particularly important in view of the fact that similar refusals to perform marriages and partnerships of same-sex or refusal to provide services to same-sex couples is a frequent occurrence in other European jurisdictions. This decision should help to guide national governments on the balance between freedom of religion and the right to non-discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation,” stated Evelyne Paradis, ILGA-Europe’s Executive Director.
“The Court’s reaffirmation that same–sex couples are in a similar situation to different-sex couples as regards their need to recognition and protection is an important step forward; that fundamental human right principle should guide all European states in the future,” concluded Souhayr Belhassen, FIDH President.
The ICJ, ILGA-Europe and FIDH had submitted a joint third-party intervention
See also:
European Court of Human Rights’ press release
European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of Eweida and Others v. United Kingdom (Applications nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10) 15 January 2013
The ICJ presented its views on corruption and the rule of law at a hearing of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of PACE, on 19 March.
