|
Right to Marry and Found a Family
F. v. Switzerland (1987), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No.128 (Swiss legislation that prohibited the applicant from remarrying for three years following his third divorce was in contravention of the Convention since divorced persons have the right to remarry without unreasonable restrictions under Art. 12 (right to marry)). Cossey v. U.K. (1990), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser.A, No.184 (Contracting States may regulate marriages and may require that only couples who are biologically of the opposite sex may marry. Therefore the refusal to allow the applicant - a male to female transsexual - to marry another man was not a violation of the right to privacy (Art. 8) or the right to marry (Art. 12). Right to Equality Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom, (1985), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No. 94 (Law requiring women, but not men, lawfully settled in the United Kingdom to meet certain requirements before their foreign husbands could join them amounted to sex discrimination with respect to their right to respect for family life (Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8). Rasmussen v. Denmark (1984), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A., No. 87 (Danish law that established time limits for paternity tests but no time limits for maternity tests did not result in a violation of the right to equality under Art. 14). Inze v. Austria (1987), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No. 126 (Austrian law drawing a distinction on grounds of legitimacy found to be a breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention and Article 14 of the European Convention). Vermiere v. Belgium (1991), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No.214-C (The applicant's exclusion from the estate of her grandfather solely by reason of her being an illegitimate child violated Art. 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Art. 8 (right to respect for private life)). Salguerio da Silva Mouta v. Portugal (1999) Eur. Ct. H.R. Reports 1999-IX (The applicant was prevented by his ex-wife from visiting his daughter in breach of an agreeement reached at the time of their divorce. Parental responsibility for the child was granted to her mother, based on the fact that the applicant was homosexual and was living with another man. Because the final decision to award custody had made a distinction based on the applicant's sexual orientation there had been a violation of Art. 8 in conjunction with Art. 14). Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland (1993), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No. 263, 16 E.H.R.R. 405 (Denial of social security benefit on basis of assumption that women gave up work after they gave birth to a child constituted discrimination on the basis of sex under Art. 14 and violated the applicant's right to fair proceedings under Art. 6(1)). See also: Thlimmenos v. Greece under "Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion" SELECTED DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Right to Life and Survival X. v. Norway (1961), Eur. Comm. H.R., Application No. 867/60 (Right to life under Article 2 is compatible with law authorizing interruption of pregnancy). Tavares v. France (1991), Eur. Comm. H.R., Application No. 16593/90, unpublished (Maternal death case held inadmissible for technical reasons, but the Commission emphasized that the right to life (Article 2 ) not only requires States to take steps to prevent intentional killing but to take measures necessary to protect life against unintentional loss). Right to be Free from Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Karara v. Finland, (1988), Eur. Comm. H.R., Application No. 40900/98, 29 May 1998 (An HIV positive applicant's challenge to a deportation order was dismissed where there was no indication that he would have to face ill-treatment upon returning to home country and he had not yet reached such an advanced stage of illness such that his deportation would amount to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Charter). Cyprus v. Turkey (1976), Eur. Comm. H.R., 4 E.H.R.R. 482 (The non-derogable prohibition of torture violated when Turkish troops raped women during the invasion of Cyprus). Right to Liberty and Security of the Person R. Magarit v. U.K., Eur. Comm. H.R., Application no. 22761/93, 14 April 1994 (The decision not to take the applicant's onset of AIDS into account as a mitigating factor in sentencing was not unreasonable or disproportionate and therefore did not violate the applicant's right to liberty and security of the person under Article 5 of the Charter).
|