In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom (application nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10), which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 9 (freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights as concerned Ms Eweida, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 9 of the European Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), as concerned Ms Chaplin and Mr McFarlane, and by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9 as concerned Ms Ladele. All four applicants are practising Christians. Ms Eweida, a British Airways employee, and Ms Chaplin, a geriatrics nurse, complained that their employers placed restrictions on their visibly wearing Christian crosses around their necks while at work. Ms Ladele, a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and Mr McFarlane, a Relate counsellor complained about their dismissal for refusing to carry out certain of their duties which they considered would condone homosexuality. Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »
The applicants, Nadia Eweida, Shirley Chaplin, Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane, are British nationals who were born in 1951, 1955, 1960 and 1961 and live in Twickenham, Exeter, London and Bristol (UK) respectively. Relying on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they complain that UK law does not sufficiently protect their rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination at work. Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »
The European Court of Human Rights is holding a public hearing today Tuesday 4 September 2012 at 9 a.m. on the admissibility and merits in the following cases: Chaplin v. the United Kingdom (application no. 59842/10), Eweida v. the United Kingdom (no. 48420/10), Ladele v. the United Kingdom (no. 51671/10) and McFarlane v. the United Kingdom (no. 36516/10), concerning four practising Christians’ complaints that UK law did not sufficiently protect their rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination at work. The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site (www.echr.coe.int). After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which will be held in private. Its ruling in the case will, however, be made at a later stage. Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »
Als “Übersetzungsarbeit von juristischen Zusammenhängen gegenüber Journalisten (und anderen Stakeholdern), die meist keine Juristen sind”, beschreibt Tobias Gostomzyk Litigation-PR. Der Aspekt ist nicht der einzige, doch ist er wichtig und wertvoll. Vor allem ist er – im besten Sinne des Wortes – rechtschaffen. Ein Feld, das von jeher und, wie mir scheint, mehr und mehr des Übersetzens bedarf, ist das Staatskirchenrecht. Zwei Beispiele sollen zeigen, dass Litigation-PR hier ein sinnvolles Anwendungsfeld finden kann.