|
Kroon v. The Netherlands (1994), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No. 297-C, 19 E.H.R.R. 263 (The right to respect for family life is not confined to marriage-based relationships. Therefore, a father wrongly barred from establishing paternity resulted in a violation under Art. 8). X., Y. and Z. v. The United Kingdom (1997), Eur. Ct. H.R., Reports 1997-II (Notion of "family life" not confined solely to families based on marriage; factors such as cohabitation and length of relationship are also relevant under Art. 8). Marckx v. Belgium (1979), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No. 31; 2 E.H.R.R. 330 (Belgian legislation requiring an unmarried mother to specifically legitimate her child born out of wedlock held to discriminate on the basis of marital status (Art. 14), and to violate the right to respect for family life under (Art. 8). X & Y. v. The Netherlands (1985), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No.91, 8 E.H.R.R. 235 (State held responsible for not having enacted appropriate criminal legislation to vindicate the right to private life of a mentally handicapped sixteen-year girl who had been raped under Art. 8). Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (1981), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No. 5; 4 E.H.R.R. 149 (Northern Irish laws criminalizing consenting adult private homosexual conduct violated respect for private life (Article 8)). Laskey, Jaggard, & Brown v. U.K. (1997), Eur. Ct. H.R., Reports 1997-I (It is not a violation of privacy for national authorities to consider that the prosecution and conviction of the applicants for their sado-masochistic activities was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of health within the meaning of Article 8(2)). Lustig-Prean & Beckett v. U.K (1999), Eur. Ct. H.R., Application no. 31417/96 ; 32377/96 (Neither the investigations conducted into the applicants' sexual orientation, nor their discharge from the British Armed Forces on the grounds of their homosexuality in pursuance of the Ministry of Defence policy were justified under Article 8(2) of the Convention). Smith & Grady v. UK (1999) Eur. Ct. H:R:, Reports 1999-VI (Neither the investigations conducted into the applicants' sexual orientation, nor their discharge from the British Armed Forces on the grounds of their homosexuality in pursuance of the Ministry of Defence policy were justified under Article 8(2) of the Convention). A.D.T. v. The United Kingdom (2000) Eur. Ct. H:R. Application no. 00035765/97 (Since there was no "presseing social need" for the criminalisation of and prosecution for truly private and consensual group male homosexual activity, both the law prohibiting consensual sexual acts between more than two men in private and the conviction of the applicant were held to be in violation of Art. 8). Modinos v. Cyprus (1993), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No. 259, 16 E.H.R.R. 485 (Cypriot laws criminalizing consenting adult private homosexual conduct violated respect for private life under Art. 8). Norris v. Ireland (1988), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No. 142, 13 E.H.R.R. 186 (Irish laws criminalizing consenting adult private homosexual conduct violated respect for private life under Art. 8). Rees v. United Kingdom (1987), Eur. Ct. H.R. Ser. A, No.106, 9 E.H.R.R. 433 (Government's refusal to change birth certificate to reflect applicant's new gender after operation was not a violation of Art. 8). Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium (1980), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser.A, No.40 (Case where applicant, a female to male transsexual, argued that the refusal to change his birth certificate was a violation of his right to privacy under Art. 8 was dismissed on basis of failure to exhaust domestic remedies). B. v. France (1992), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No.232-C (As a result of the frequent necessity of disclosing information concerning her private life to third parties, the applicant, who was a transsexual, suffered distress which was too serious to be justified on the ground of respect for the rights of others which resulted in a violation of Art. 8). See also: Aireycase under "Right to Procedural Fairness" Vermiere v. Belgium; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom; Salguerio da Silva Mouta V under "Right to Equality" Stubbings & others v. U.K under "Right to Procedural Fairness" Cossey v. U.K. under "Right to Marry" Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion Thlimmenos v. Greece (2000), European Ct. H.R, App. No. 34369/97 (The Hellenic Republic was found to have violated the applicant's right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion when he was denied an appointment to the post of chartered accountant due to his prior criminal conviction for refusing to wear the military uniform based on his religious beliefs. This was held to violate Arts. 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (right to equality)). Right to Receive and Impart Information Bowman v. United Kingdom (1998), Eur. Ct. H.R. Ser. A, No. 141, 2-4 H.R.L.J. 84 (British legislation prohibiting payment for the distribution of anti-abortion leaflets in an election campaign found to violate of the right to freedom of expression under Art.10). Handyside v. U.K. (1976) Eur. Ct. H.R. Ser. A, No. 24. (The English court was entitled, in its discretion to decide that a book about sexuality would have pernicious effects on the morals of the children and adolescents and therefore there was no violation of the right to freedom of expression under Art. 10). Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Women v. Ireland (1992), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No. 246, 15 E.H.R.R. 244 (Irish governmental ban on counselling and circulation of information with regard to where one might find legal abortions in Britain violated the right to impart and receive information under Art. 10).
|