Aby sis mohl přečíst zprávy, tak se musíš nejprve přihlásit :)

Nemáš ještě svůj účet?

Registrace je snadná, rychlá a zdarma!

Rozhodnutí Evropského soudu pro lidská práva

17. 01. 2023 v 21:55Off-line Anonym
A violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the Russian autho***ies’ refusal to ensure legal recognition and protection for the applicants as same-sex couples.

The case-law of the Court showed that Article 8 of the Convention had already been interpreted as requiring a State Party to ensure legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples by putting in
place a “specific legal framework”. The clear ongoing trend observed within the States Parties
towards legal recognition and protection of same-sex couples was consolidated by the converging
positions of a number of international bodies. Several Council of Europe bodies had stressed the
need to ensure legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples within the member States.
The Court observed that at the time when the applicants had applied to the Russian autho***ies for
legal recognition of their respective relationships, Russian law had not provided for that possibility.
Nor had there been any change subsequently. The Court noted that the respondent State had not
informed it of any intention to amend its domestic law in order to allow same-sex couples to enjoy
official recognition and a legal regime offering protection. The Court had already rejected the
Government’s argument that the majo***y of Russians disapproved of homosexuality, in the context
of cases concerning freedom of expression, ***embly or ***ociation for sexual mino***ies. The Court
had repeatedly held that although individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of
a group, democracy did not simply mean that the views of a majo***y always had to prevail: a
balance had to be achieved which ensured the fair treatment of people from mino***ies and avoided
any abuse of a dominant position. The Court had consistently declined to endorse policies and
decisions which embodied a predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majo***y against a
homosexual mino***y.
The Court concluded that the respondent State had overstepped its margin of appreciation and had
failed to comply with its positive obligation to secure the applicants’ right to respect for their private
and family life
A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC
18. 01. 2023 v 18:56Off-line Anonym
Vyjádřit by se měli Buzní podporovatele Ruska a ne ty
Souhlasím - 1   •  Nesouhlasím - 1  Nahlásit
Přihlas se a napiš svůj názor. Nemáš svůj účet? Zaregistruj se.
Copyright 2011–2023 NaKluky.cz, všechna práva vyhrazena, ISSN 1805-0506