London, 23 December 2010

On 14 December 2010, the European Court of Human Rights issued judgments in three cases which involved Article 14 claims – O’Donoghue v United Kingdom (application no. 34848/07), Milanović v Serbia (application no. 44614/07) and Mizigárová v Slovakia (application no. 74832/01). In two of these cases, the Court found violations of Article 14 in conjunction with other articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (Milanović and O’Donoghue) but in the third (Mizigárová), it found there to have been no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2.

London, 14 December 2010

On 9 December 2010, the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Savez crkava Rijec zivota and Others v Croatia (application no. 7798/08) found a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 9 (freedom of religion) in circumstances where the Government of Croatia failed to provide an objective and reasonable justification for its less favourable treatment of some religious communities within Croatia. Importantly, the Court did not find a violation of Article 9 alone, thus underscoring the separate value of Article 14 to human rights protection under the ECHR.  

London, 25 November 2010

On 21 October 2010, the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Alekseyev v Russia (application nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09) found that freedom of peaceful assembly should be guaranteed without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, irrespective of the moral and religious beliefs of the majority of society. The Court held that the banning of gay pride marches due to the anticipated violent reactions and threat to public order could not be justified as necessary in a democratic society and was therefore a violation of both Articles 11 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  

London, 12 November 2010

On 29 October 2010, The Tokyo District Court, 38th Civil Division upheld the decisions of the Japanese Ministry of Justice and the Japanese Immigration Bureau to refuse the granting of refugee status to 18 Rohingya applicants and to issue them with deportation orders to Burma. The Court revoked the decisions of the Japanese Ministry of Justice and the Japanese Immigration Bureau with regard to two other Rohingya applicants. This is the first case the Equal Rights Trust has come across, of a court of law in a democratic country ordering the deportation of Rohingya to Burma.

On 13 July 2010, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in the case of Kuric and others v. Slovenia (application no. 26828/06), ruled that the “erasure” of the applicants from the Slovenian Register of Permanent Residents and the resulting severe repercussions this had for their private and family life constituted a violation of Article 8 (private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECtHR also found that Slovenia violated Article 13 of the ECHR as it failed to provide the applicants with an effective remedy before a domestic authority.

On 25 March 2010, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in the case of Paraskeva Todorova  vs.  Bulgaria (Application no. 37193/07), ruled that the Bulgarian courts had discriminated against a Romani woman, in deciding to impose a custodial rather than the suspended sentence recommended by the prosecution.  The ECtHR found that in so doing, the Bulgarian courts had motivated their decision on the basis of her ethnic origin.

On 16 March 2010, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court), in the case of Oršuš and Others v. Croatia (Application no.15766/03), ruled that Croatia discriminated against 15 Roma children who were segregated into separate school classes.

The case concerned 15 primary school children who had been segregated into Roma-only classes as a result of alleged failures to adequately acquire command of the Croatian language. The applicants, represented by the European Roma Rights Centre, the Croatian Helsinki Committee and Croatian attorney Lovorka Kusan, argued that they had not been provided with satisfactory measures to address their language difficulties and that their segregation was the result of racial discrimination.

On 2 March 2010, the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Kozak v. Poland (application No. 13102/02) found that a same-sex partner should be able to succeed to a tenancy held by their deceased partner. The Court held that the Polish authorities’ exclusion of same-sex couples from succession could not be justified as necessary for the legitimate purpose of protection of the family and was a violation of the right to non-discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.