scholarly journals The pathologisation of trans* persons in the ECtHR’s case law on legal gender recognition

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter Cannoot
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Sex Reassignment Surgery ◽  
Gender Recognition ◽  
Sex Reassignment ◽  
Wide Margin ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation

The European Court of Human Rights is the human rights monitoring body that has dealt with the largest number of cases related to gender identity and trans* persons. In this regard, it has recognised under Article 8 ECHR both a right to gender self-determination and a positive obligation for the State to adopt a procedure for legal gender recognition. However, Contracting States were given a wide margin of appreciation to set conditions for the legal recognition of a person’s actual gender identity, leading to the acceptance by the Strasbourg Court of pathologising requirements such as a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and compulsory sex reassignment surgery. This contribution analyses and conceptually explains this message of trans* pathologisation in the ECtHR’s case law. Subsequently, on a normative level, it argues that this case law cannot be upheld taking into account the international trend towards full trans* depathologisation, and the scope of the margin of appreciation that States (ought to) have in cases concerning gender identity.

scholarly journals Podstawowe trendy orzecznictwa Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w sprawach podatkowych

2020 ◽  
pp. 9-32
Author(s):  
Tadeusz Jasudowicz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Wide Margin ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Criminal Charge ◽  
Raison D’État

The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in tax matters has developed in three dimensions. Firstly, it involved Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention with reference to “the payment of taxes”, viewed, notwithstanding the State’s wide margin of appreciation, in the light of the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions. Secondly, from the perspective of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention, tax disputes can be covered by the guarantees of a fair trial where the proceedings and sanctions, for example, concerning tax surcharges, are qualified in their autonomous Convention meaning as a “criminal charge” against the taxpayer. Moreover, despite its traditional case-law, in the last years the Court has seemed to allow the possibility of qualifying tax disputes as concerning “civilrights and obligations” Thirdly, on the basis of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, the Court has found violations of the prohibition “to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings” in the context of dual, i.e. tax (administrative) and penal, proceedings. The author critically assesses the Court judgment in the case of A. and B. v. Norway, in which the Court did not find a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. In the Norwegian case, the distinct administrative and penal proceedings were in fact merged, since the state introduced a system of integrated legal answers to taxpayers’ behavior. According to Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, expressing a dissenting opinion, the Court in this judgment wrongly changed its stance from pro persona to pro auctoritate, possibly forgetting that it is a court of humanrights, and not a pleader of raison d’Etat. Although the Court declared that it considers the Convention “as a whole”, and seeks to ensure the consistency of the Convention system and harmony of its provisions, it might have lost sight of ties existing between them. Taxpayers are also individual humansand have a title to human rights, thus tax disputes are those of a human rights nature. Understandably, the ECHR must persist as a Court of Human Rights.

MEDICINSKE USLUGE POLNOG PRILAGOĐAVANjA KAO USLOV ZA PRAVNU PROMENU POLA U SVETLU PRAKSE EVROPSKOG SUDA ZA LjUDSKA PRAVA

2021 ◽  
pp. 199-209
Author(s):  
Veljko Vlašković ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Gender Recognition ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Legal Recognition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Gender Reassignment ◽  
The Right

By its decision in case Goodwin v. United Kingdom (2002), The European Court of Human Rights has recognized the positive obligation of states to provide conditions for the legal recognition of preferred gender in the context of the right to respect for private life. In this regard, the Court emphasized gender identity as an important element of personal identity and an integral part of the transgender person's right to private life. On the other hand, states have kept their margin of appreciation regarding requirements needed for changing gender data in civil registries or in other words legal recognition of preferred gender. After Goodwin case, that has laid foundations for the rights of transgender people to gender identity, further development of this right was set by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in case A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France (2017). By this decision, the Court has further narrow the margin of appreciation removing imposing of sterilisation as a requirement for legal gender recognition. Finally, The European Court of Human Rights has taken the position in the latest judgment X and Y. v. Romania (2021) that conditioning legal recognition of preferred gender with surgical interventions of gender reassignment represents breach of the right to respect private life. Thus, the Court further approached Council of Europe Resolution 1728 (2010) according to which states are suggested to remove from the requirements for legal gender recognition the subjection to any medical service of gender reassignment, including hormone therapy. Domestic legislation has retained only hormone therapy as a necessary condition for legal gender reassignment. Although this solution is in accordance with the latest case law of the European Court of Human Rights, another step is needed to make the exercise of the right to gender identity adjusted to the "soft law" of the Council of Europe and the bodies under the auspices of the United Nations.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Claire Fenton-Glynn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
International Instruments

This chapter provides a brief introduction to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), as it relates to children. Over the past 60 years, the ECtHR has developed a substantial and ever-growing body of case law concerning children, covering issues ranging from juvenile justice and physical integrity to immigration, education, and religion, as well as a code of family law which significantly expands the scope and influence of the ECHR. The chapter explains four key principles of interpretation (positive obligations, the living instrument doctrine, subsidiarity, and the margin of appreciation), as well as the Court’s use of international instruments.

Positive subsidiarity and its implications for the margin of appreciation doctrine

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 210-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Brems
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
First Line ◽  
Wide Margin ◽  
Positive Dimension ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation

The article presents an argument in favour of a richer theory of subsidiarity in the European Court of Human Rights context. In particular, the proposal is to include what is called a ‘positive’ dimension in subsidiarity thinking. That is to say, the article argues that the scholarly and political debate on ECHR subsidiarity has focused mostly on ECHR restraint, associated with a wide margin of appreciation for the States Parties. There is however a complementary dimension in the subsidiarity layout, which concerns the responsibility of national authorities to offer first-line protection of Convention rights. The article examines the role the European Court of Human Rights can play in facilitating that first-line responsibility. The article explores what this means for the margin of appreciation of national authorities.

Limitations on Freedom of Religion and Belief in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the Quarter Century since Its Judgment in Kokkinakis v. Greece

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 174-197
Author(s):  
Mark Hill ◽  
Katherine Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Democratic Society ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation

Abstract The manifestation of religious beliefs under Article 9 the European Convention on Human Rights is not absolute but may be subject to prescribed limitations. This article discusses the nature and extent of those limitations, as interpreted in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights from its decision in Kokkinakis v. Greece up to the present. It contrasts the prescriptive text of the Article with its lose and inconsistent interpretation by the Court in Strasbourg. Particular attention is given to the criteria of “prescribed by law”, “necessary in a democratic society”, “public safety”, “public order, health or morals” and “the rights and freedoms of others”. It seeks to divine principles from the varied jurisprudence, particularly at its intersection with the Court’s illusory doctrine of margin of appreciation.

Prohibitions against Religious Clothing and Symbols in Public Schools and Universities: Narrowing the Scope by Introducing the Principle of Equal Treatment of Religious Manifestations

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-190
Author(s):  
Vibeke Blaker Strand
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Educational Institutions ◽  
Member States ◽  
Wide Margin ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Religious Clothing

The reasoning and conclusions reached by the European Court of Human Rights in cases against some Member States that involve prohibitions against the wearing of religious clothes and symbols in public educational institutions have led scholars to argue that introduction of similar prohibitions in other Member States will be in conformity with the Convention. By broadening the spectrum of relevant case-law, this article will argue that the wide margin of appreciation often referred to, conceals that the strictness of review may vary considerably depending on the circumstances of each case. The principle of equal treatment of religious manifestations is introduced as a norm that influences the strictness of review. Further, it is discussed to what extent the aim of preserving gender equality and the aim of avoiding religious pressure may be put forward in order to justify the introduction of prohibitions.

Subsidiarity Post-Brighton: Procedural Rationality as Answer?

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
PATRICIA POPELIER ◽  
CATHERINE VAN DE HEYNING
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Procedural Rationality ◽  
Wide Margin ◽  
High Profile ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

AbstractDuring the Interlaeken and Brighton conferences in 2010 and 2012 on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) the High Contracting Parties demanded an increased focus of the Court on subsidiarity when considering cases. The ECtHR had been criticized by several states, in particular the United Kingdom (UK), for second-guessing domestic decisions of the democratically elected legislator. A procedural rationality approach could answer this critique. This approach implies that the Court takes the quality of the decision-making procedure as a decisive factor for its assessment of the proportionality of a domestic measure. In several recent high-profile cases the Court has adopted such approach providing the defending state with a wide margin of appreciation due to the high quality of the decision-making procedure. This contribution discusses to what extent the Court has applied this approach pre- and post-Brighton and the potential pitfalls. The contribution concludes that this approach could provide a vital leeway between the Court's supervisory and subsidiary role in the protection of human rights if applied coherently and consistently. However, it is no magic solution to silence the criticism against the Court as the opponents of the Court do not just reject its approach to proportionality review, but judicial review of legislative decisions altogether.

Islamophobia and the ECtHRA Test Case for Positive Subsidiarity for the Protection of Europe’s Long-term Migrants?

2021 ◽  
pp. 196-216
Author(s):  
Eva Brems
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Test Case ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Minority Religion ◽  
The Face

A reflection on the human rights of migrants in Europe cannot avoid the issue of racism. Resistance to immigration in Europe is fuelled to a large extent by resistance to the ‘otherness’ of migrants. More specifically, the ‘otherness’ that is most central to today’s debates on migration and integration in Europe is Islam. Thus, racism is commonly expressed as Islamophobia, and Islamophobia is both expressed in, and fuelled by, rights-restrictive rules that specifically target Islamic practices. The focus of the analysis in this chapter is on the messages the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is sending to national authorities regarding their approaches to multicultural conflicts over Islamic minority practices. This is situated in the framework of ‘positive subsidiarity’. It is argued that, even when the margin of appreciation is a wide one, the Court has a responsibility to offer guidance to states parties on three levels: substantive, procedural, and discursive. The chapter then explores the messages sent by the Court to states parties in the field of the restriction of Islamic minority practices. First it does so by comparing what is widely considered the Court’s ‘worst practice’ in this field—the face veil cases—with its ‘best practice’ in a different, but comparable field—the ‘gay propaganda’ cases. After that, the chapter continues the analysis on the basis of a broader case law corpus that includes all cases regarding the accommodation of Islamic practice in countries in which Islam is a minority religion.

Allowing the Right Margin: The European Court of Human Rights and The National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review?

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 381-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean Spielmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Essential Question ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Law

AbstractThe doctrine of the national margin of appreciation is well established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In applying this essentially judge-made doctrine, the Court imposes self-restraint on its power of review, accepting that domestic authorities are best placed to settle a dispute. The areas in which the doctrine has most often been applied will be presented here, looking at various examples from case law. After a brief overview of the doctrine’s origin, the analysis will focus on the situations in which the margin has been allowed or denied. Does it relate merely to factual and domestic-law aspects of a case? What is the scope of the margin of appreciation when it comes to interpreting provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights? What impact does an interference (whether disproportionate or not) with a guaranteed right have on the margin allowed? Is there a second-degree or ‘reverse’ margin of appreciation, whereby discretionary powers can be distributed between executive and judicial authorities at domestic level? Lastly it is noteworthy that Protocol No 14, now ratified by all Council of Europe Member States, enshrines in Article 12—at least to some extent—an obligation to apply a margin of appreciation. One essential question remains: by allowing any margin of a certain width, is the European Court simply waiving its power of review or is it attributing responsibility to the domestic courts in the interest of a healthy subsidiarity?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document