The article briefly reviews the conclusions from the recent sociological research on post-socialist social heritage in Romania. Its results are bitter. Socialism left behind -in a societal sense - deformed and injured beings and human minds, it embodied irrationality, and promoted a 'senile mentality' in this country. Since 1989, when the former regime collapsed, multidimensional social changes have occurred: the polarization of lifestyles, impoverishment of the people, moral crisis and distrust in public institutions. The 'new' Romanian society is characterized by such features as the struggle for survival, 'mini-development', leftist conservatism, apparent democracy ('for display'), minimal citizen activity, lack of interest in the public life, distrust of the state's effectiveness, full subjugation to the state and its organs. After 1989, numerous research institutions with the aim of investigating the recent past of the Romanian state have been founded. However, they are strictly politically oriented and are instrumentally used by the politicians.
Lautsi v. Italy was an important court case that was tried at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The subsequent ruling on 3rd November 2009 noted that the display of religious symbols (i.e., the crucifix in Italian public school classes) is contrary to Article 2 of the 1st Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision which went against Italy is in line with other judgments in similar cases, and seems to be promoting the European public school as a place of confessional neutrality where the goal is to cultivate secular values of a democratic society in pupils. The European Court of Human Rights thus clearly supports the idea and principles of secularism and the impartiality of the state. However, the ruling did not impose any obligation to undertake adequate legal solutions or verify the existing law, leaving each member state a level of freedom to make opinions and final decisions on their own. The Lautsi v. Italy judgment had an indirect influence on the entire public service sphere, of which the public school is just one link of a chain. Yet Italy filed an appeal and the case was referred to the Court's Grand Chamber. Its hearing is to be held on June 30, 2010. The legal ramifications of this ruling therefore remain an important debate in Europe.
The article provides a critical analysis of three individual notification opinions issued by the UN Human Rights Committee in July 2018 on the compatibility of existing regulations in States parties (France, Turkey) on bans on wearing religious symbols with the freedom to manifest religion guaranteed by Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Moreover, the text points out the dichotomy – in terms of content – of positions on this issue between the universal body and the regional reference body (the European Court of Human Rights) and also addresses such systemic issues as the problem of legal force of the Committee’s opinions, the lack of dialogue or even isolationism of international bodies ruling on human rights, or the dispute over the primacy of their decisions.
The author examines historical origins as well as background and characteristics of transformation of the local law in Alsace-Moselle, a region in France which in the past existed under the strong infl uence (including incorporation) of Germany. This set of specifi c legal provisions concerns, inter alia, such important issues as Church-State relations. Due to the unitary nature of the French state, on the one hand, and the type of matter which is usually subject to regulations having constitutional rank, on the other hand, the issue seems rather quaint and intriguing, given that these relations are shaped in local law of Alsace-Moselle in a way closer to the approach applied in devout countries rather than in secular countries that after all is France. It seemed that the recent introduction of the ability to exercise ex post review of the constitutionality of laws could pose a serious threat to the constitutionally doubtful position of local laws. . Obawy te zostały wprawdzie rozwiane przez Radę Konstytucyjną, która nadała mu status zasady podstawowej uznanej prawami Republiki, zapewniając konstytucyjnie uwarunkowaną stabilność, jednak decyzja ta została, jak się wydaje, powzięta z przesłanek bardziej pragmatyczno-politycznych niż prawno-konstytucyjnej natury. In fact, these concerns were allayed by the Constitutional Council, which gave it the status of a fundamental principle enshrined in the laws of the Republic, providing a constitutionally conditioned stability, but this decision was, as it seems, based on political- pragmatic grounds rather than legal-constitutional arguments.
A reminder of the main assertions of the spectacular and — as it turned out — extremely current judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 1994 in the Otto-Preminger-Institut vs. Austria Case has become a pretext and a counterpoint for presenting a critical analysis of the judgement of 2018 in the E.S vs. Austria Case. The conflict between freedom of expression (including artistic expression) and freedom of thought, conscience and religion was again resolved by the Court in favor of the latter, showing both the lack of dynamics in terms of modification of the original assessment made many years ago, and discrepancy as to the contemporary opinions of other EU bodies.
The author discusses the extraterritorial application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the context of the judgments of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR in cases Al-Skeini et al. v. UK and Al-Jedda v. UK. Developing its earlier case law, the Tribunal specifi es details of the jurisdiction laid down in Article 1 of the Convention of 1950 and refers to the problem of priority in case of a collision of obligations resulting from the UN Charter one hand, and the Convention on the other.
In the article a controversial judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice is discussed, passed in the case of S.A.S. v. France of 1 July 2014, where the areligious French ban against face covering in public space was considered — with reference to protecting the value of living together — consistent with the European for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Especially important in the case are both legal circumstances accompanying the introduction of the controversial ban and arguments included in the statement of reasons of the analyzed judgment, particularly doubts related to applying univocal judicial techniques and a comprehensible axiological system of weighing opposite interests.
The constitutionally declared secularism of the French Republic imposes the necessity to introduce provisions restricting the expansion of religious symbolism (including Christian symbols) in the public space of the state. A particular, increasing problem is related to the symbols of Islam, especially the specific dress code for women. The author describes the background of the confl ict, presents legal acts restricting the freedom of religion realized in this context, and refers to the most recent case law of the French courts and the European Court of Human Rights, hence he comprehensibly discusses the legal aspects of the issue.
The constitutional principle of secularity is one of the foundations of the French Republic. Now adays, you can observe the process of its deconstruction in terms juridical measures and formulas. The author reminds us of constitutional origins and form of the principle of secularity, but above all shows the methods and legal instruments for the transition from the system of the so-called hostile separation of church and state to the stage of the so-called positive secularity.
The commentary analyses the interim order of the Council of State of 18 May 2020 in the case of M.W. and Others, declaring the maintenance – during the first phase of the relaxation of the quarantine restrictions – of the ban on meetings and assemblies in places of worship, with the exception of funeral ceremonies involving up to 20 people, to be a serious and obviously unlawful infringement of freedom of religion. A counterpoint to this analysis is the preceding presentation of European law regulations and the position of the reference European courts on this subject.
The article provides an analysis of judgment of Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of 7 July 2011 in the case of Bayatyan v. Armenia, in which the Court, based on the “living instrument” doctrine, gives — inter alia — a new creative interpretation of Article 9 of the Convention. In this interpretation the Court broadened its scope of protection to include conscientious objectors, to autonomous extent, within the full meaning of this prerequisite not functionally limited to matters relating to the armed service, which might be indicated by the scope of the case considered.
The termination of pregnancy is a complex issue in the legal, ethical, moral and religious dimensions. The author briefl y discusses the circumstances of the adoption in 1993 of a „compromise” Bill on Family Planning, Human Embryo Protection and Conditions of Permissibility of Abortion. But, above all, he provides a cross-sectional and synthetic analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on this issue. It is clear from the judgments of the Court (e.g. in cases A, B and C v. Ireland and R.R v. Poland), that it does not impose on the States Parties an obligation to introduce in their internal legal systems an unconditional right to abortion. But if such a right is granted, at least in a restricted extent, then — according to the Court — the State is under commitment to ensure procedural conditions for its real enforceability. In the judgment in R.R. v. Poland, the Court, finding pregnant women to be „in a situation of great vulnerability”, gave a new perspective to its earlier case law in this regard. For the fi rst time in relation to this type of cases, it found the defendant guilty, interalia, of violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms).
Referring to arguments of a dogmatic-doctrinal nature, pointing to successive substantive-legal solutions and, finally, citing the conclusions of jurisprudential practice (national courts, ECHR, CJEU), the author points to the progressive secularisation of labour law in the French Republic. This secularisation has already completely embraced the public sphere and is now also encroaching more and more dynamically on the scope of labour relations in private enterprises.
The author discusses the issue of religion or belief discrimination in a workplace (private company), based on the conclusions drawn from the analysis of judgments of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14 March 2017 in cases of S. Achbita and A. Bougnaoui, and in the context of regulations referring to the EU Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.