Contenuti per la categoria: Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo

Dichiarazioni omofobe, un vescovo e i limiti della libertà di espressione. Un commento approfondito su CEDU 31.08.2023, Amvrosios-Athanasios Lenis v. Greece, no. 47833/20

ABSTRACT: La decisione della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo del 31agosto 2023, Amvrosios-Athanasios Lenis v. Grecia (n. 47833/20), è un ulteriore passo verso una giurisprudenza sempre più densa in materia di “hate speech” e di limiti della libertà di espressione. La proclamazione pubblica di dottrine religiose in conflitto con i valori degli Stati contraenti sanciti dalla CEDU è protetta in una certa misura dal diritto fondamentale della libertà di religione e di credo. Tuttavia, la qualificazione di una dichiarazione come religiosa non giustifica il “discorso d'odio”. L'Autore mostra la tensione tra libertà di religione, libertà di espressione e protezione dalla discriminazione e analizza la decisione sullo sfondo dell'articolo 17 della CEDU (divieto di abuso dei diritti).

ABSTRACT: The decision of the ECtHR of 31.08.2023, Amvrosios-Athanasios Lenis v. Greece (no. 47833/20), is a further step toward an increasingly dense jurisprudence on “hate speech” and the limits of freedom of expression. The public proclamation of religious doctrines that are in conflict with the values of the contracting States enshrined in the ECHR is protected to a certain extent by the fundamental right of freedom of religion and belief. However, the qualification of a statement as religious does not justify “hate speech.” The AUTHOR shows the tension between freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and protection against discrimination, and analyzes the decision against the backdrop of Article 17 of the ECHR (prohibition of abuse of rights).

L’art. 9 della Convenzione E.D.U. secondo la giurisprudenza recente della Corte E.D.U. (2018-2023)

ABSTRACT: The right to religious freedom is constantly changing, following the contemporary treatment of the religious phenomenon within the public sphere of the states. This finding is also evident in the ECHR's jurisprudence, which since the Kokkinakis case seems to have made great progress in the development of the more specific manifestations of religious freedom, such as religious autonomy. In this context, an attempt is made to draw conclusions regarding the right of religious freedom under the related ECHR’s case law.

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduction - 2. Freedom of Assembly and Association - 3. Respect for family and private life - 4. Religious freedom in prison - 5. Religious Minorities: the example of Jehovah's Witnesses - 6. The example of Greece - 7. Conclusion.

Thought and counter-thought. The limits and legitimacy of Israel-critical speech under the European Court of Human Rights

ABSTRACT: In May 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a working definition of antisemitism as a non-binding guide for states and policymakers to identify criminal anti-Jewish behaviour. Critics, however, argue that the IHRA definition hastily conflates illegitimate forms of antisemitism with legitimate political speech against Israel's government and policies. Therefore, if integrated into national legislation, they warn that the IHRA definition could easily become a legal tool to stifle critics of the Israeli government and advocates for Palestinian rights. Political agendas apart, the terminological imprecision of the IHRA definition raises timely questions about the boundaries between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, as well as between legitimate and illegitimate Israel-critical speech. This is especially relevant, particularly after Palestinian militant group Ḥamās launched a surprise attack against Israel on October 7, 2023. The ongoing war thus raises the questions: Apart from open calls to violence, how to assess when legitimate, anti-Israel speech might spiral into illegitimate, harmful discourses? And what factors should be brought to bear on legal balancing? Although not dealing with a war-torn scenario, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has offered some insights on the issue that will be addressed in this paper.

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione - 2. Legittimità della critica antisionista: Baldassi c. Francia - 3. Limiti della critica antisionista: status pubblico del divulgatore e natura antisemita della divulgazione - 3.1. Bonnet c. Francia - 4. Conclusioni.

Emotional relationships and legal border. Family and families in the European area from religious factors and national law to agreement strategies

ABSTRACT: The family is subject to socio-cultural changes and it is regulated differently from European legal systems. In addition, in Europe, by fall of geographical barriers and the increase of migration, there has been the spread of family models not compatible with the principles and values of the host countries resulting in legal, cultural and religious conflicts. The movement of people within the European area call for coordinated actions and/or the adoption of adaptation techniques processes to the recognition of family status and related rights. This process aims to avoid that one legal relations with internationality may undergone different and heterogeneous regulatory disciplines with implications on the effective enjoyment of fundamental rights and religious ones. This work analyzes the regulation of family law in the European judicial area to understand which path to follow in preventing that the movement of people may be hampered by the heterogeneous of national laws and the relevance of the religious factor in this context.

SOMMARIO: - 1. Brevi considerazioni introduttive - 2. La disciplina sostanziale del diritto di famiglia in Europa: la competenza degli ordinamenti nazionali. - 3. Famiglia e diritti nel sistema europeo - 4. Concetto di famiglia e diritto alla vita familiare - 5. Il diritto di famiglia e l’azione dell’Unione europea nello spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia - 6. Sharīʿah, famiglia e diritto europeo: un rapporto difficile e controverso - 7. I Principles of European Family Law - 8. La famiglia tra diritto comune e politiche di armonizzazione - 9. In somma.

SOMMARIO: 1. Cenni introduttivi sui termini della questione oggetto di analisi - 2. La vicenda da cui trae origine il ricorso presentato alla Corte europea dei diritti umani - 3. L’orientamento della giurisprudenza della Corte in materia di immunità degli Stati dalla giurisdizione - 4. Immunità dalla giurisdizione e “sovranità” degli organismi centrali della Chiesa - 5. La distinzione tra acta jure imperii e acta jure gestionis riferita alle competenze degli organismi centrali della Chiesa nella gestione della crisi dei preti pedofili - 6. La questione della riconducibilità delle presunte condotte colpevoli della Santa Sede nel quadro della materia riguardante i “trattamenti inumani” - 7. La questione degli obblighi derivanti dalla Convenzione sui diritti del fanciullo - 8. I requisiti per potere inquadrare le condotte della Santa Sede tra quelle per le quali opera una eccezione codificata all’immunità dalla giurisdizione - 9. In conclusione: l’immunità della Santa Sede tra sovranità “statale” e governo della Chiesa universale (con un cenno alle discussioni sul superamento del vecchio principio di sovranità).

The Immunity of the Holy See from State Jurisdiction in the Pedophile-Priest Crisis

ABSTRACT: The recognition of the Holy See as a foreign sovereign forms the basis for any grant of immunity from legal proceedings. The present article examines the question of the Holy See’s immunity as a sovereign state in handling sexual abuse cases. To do so, the paper takes its cue from European Court of Human Rights decision in the case of J.C. and Others v. Belgium (application no. 11625/17), which has ruled that the domestic courts have not jurisdiction to hear the tort case brought against the Holy See because it enjoys sovereign immunity.

SOMMARIO - 1. Il crocifisso in classe davanti alle Sezioni Unite - 2. Laicità dello Stato e autonomia scolastica - 3. Conflitto tra diritti e reasonable accommodation - 4. La regola della reasonable accommodation nella giurisprudenza straniera e italiana - 5. Il crocifisso come simbolo “essenzialmente passivo” nella giurisprudenza europea - 6. Reasonable accommodation in assenza di una lesione di diritti: rilievi critici - 7. Bilanciamento dei diritti e legislazione scolastica - 8. Il rapporto asimmetrico tra docente e alunni nella scuola: un dato del tutto omesso - 9. La rimozione del crocifisso da parte del docente: un atto lecito? Osservazioni conclusive.

The Supreme Court’s United Sections on the Crucifix controversy in schools: searching for a difficult balance between laicism and European case-law

ABSTRACT: This paper examines critically, in the light of the Italian and European case-law, the contents and the juridical arguments of a recent decision issued by the United Sections of the Italian Court of Cassation concerning the Crucifix controversy arisen in a State school. The judges established, on one hand, that the crucifix may be hung in a classroom upon demand of the students as it does not infringe the dissenting teacher’s freedom of conscience or of teaching, according to Lautsi ECHR decision (2011); on the other hand, the clash of values involved would need a reasonable accommodation which could require other religious symbols alongside the crucifix or its removal during the lessons of the dissenting teacher. Such a decision, according to the author, appears to be somewhat contradictory and ambiguous, and it does not resolve the case in a well-balanced way.

1 - Con ordinanza n. 19618 del 18 settembre 2020 una sezione della Cassazione ha rimesso alle Sezioni Unite la decisione di un ricorso contro la sentenza della Corte d’appello di Perugia, che ha respinto l’appello proposto da un docente contro la sentenza del Tribunale della stessa sede che aveva ritenuto legittima la sanzione disciplinare della temporanea sospensione dall’insegnamento comminatagli dall’Ufficio Scolastico Provinciale. Alla base di tale provvedimento vi era stato il comportamento del docente, il quale - secondo quanto esposto nell’ordinanza in oggetto - (segue)

The Crucifix controversy before the Supreme Court’s United Sections: protection of rights or iconoclast fury?

ABSTRACT: This short paper critically examines, in the light of Italian and European case-law, the contents and juridical arguments of an order issued by a Section of the Italian Court of Cassation, which remits to the United Sections – the highest level of the Court – the decision on the Crucifix controversy arisen in a State school. Differently from previuos cases, in the presento one the teacher, and not the students or their families, removed the crucifix, hanging on the wall of the classroom as required by an old regulation, against student’s will. This repeated behaviour stirred a controversy between the teacher and the school director, which is now under judgment. Under the Italian law, secularism is not in contrast with the display of religious symbols in a State school, whose mission is that of fostering and promoting the development of children’s and student’s personality also through the free exchange of different ideas and points of view.

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione - 2. La religious accommodation in Europa - 3. (segue) Gli sviluppi più recenti - 4. Il ruolo della giurisprudenza europea: primi segnali di apertura all’accomodamento religioso - 5. Il know-how statunitense e canadese: modelli giurisprudenziali a confronto e possibili interazioni - 6. La religious accommodation in Europa: una prospettiva de iure condendo.

The European frontiers of religious accommodation. Starting points for comparison

ABSTRACT: In the last years several scholars pointed out the desirability to extend the accommodation beyond disability. Currently, indeed, a duty of reasonable accommodation is exclusively provided in favour of people with disabilities (art. 5 dir. 2000/78/CE). Previous contributions, however, have stressed how the existing lack of a provision on religious accommodation can result not only in a low level of protection of religious freedom, but also in the rise of a hierarchy related to discrimination grounds in which religion and belief seem to be left at the bottom. Recently, also the European Courts (especially the ECtHR) have apparently open to the extension of the concept of reasonable accommodation, in line with the sensitivity of the Supreme Courts of USA and Canada, where the religious accommodation was first stated. Moving from the comparison between the American and Canadian jurisprudences and the European one, this paper argues about the transposability of the religious accommodation in Europe, in order to strengthen, even in the workplace, the protection of the freedom of religion.

SOMMARIO: 1. Il cambio di paradigma indotto dalla pandemia - 2. Complessità sociali e complessità giuridiche: le loro scansioni temporali - 3. L’obiettivo di “vivere insieme in una società democratica” - 4. L’esemplare negativo della pronunzia S.A.S. c. Francia - 5. La critica alla “cecità interculturale” del secolarismo - 6. La “laicità all’europea” e il principio del “dualismo giurisdizionale” - 7. L’apporto degli ecclesiasticisti: il contributo dell’ ‘accademia’ a una politica del diritto più inclusiva - 8. Il ritorno in auge dei paradigmi euro-mediterranei e gli sviluppi delle democrazie pluraliste.

Cross-cultural Dialogue and Religious Minority in Europe at the COVID-19's time. The Contribution of the Ecclesiasticists.

ABSTRACT: The spread of the pandemic COVID-19, together with the measures of social distance and lockdown, paradoxically have contributed to making the need to recognize what is in common between the most diverse realities increasingly felt. Europe has greater legal resources than other regions of the world to ensure genuine cross-cultural and pluralistic development of the democratic systems.

SOMMARIO: 1. Un nuovo tipo di approccio alla vexata quaestio della legittimità dell’esposizione del crocifisso nelle aule scolastiche italiane - 2. L’ordinanza della Cassazione 18 settembre 2020, n. 19618: i fatti di causa e lo svolgimento del giudizio di merito - 3. I diritti nell’ambiente scolastico rivendicati dal ricorrente e l’inquadramento della vicenda operato dalla Cassazione - 4. L’(ingiustificata) esclusione dalla sfera applicativa del regio decreto n. 965 del 1924 delle scuole secondarie superiori - 5. I presupposti per far valere una discriminazione indiretta ai danni del lavoratore - 6. L’incongruenza della tesi che desume l’esistenza di una “finalità legittima” del trattamento differenziato dall’esigenza del rispetto della “coscienza morale e civile degli alunni” come declinata dalla “volontà della maggioranza” dei medesimi - 7. La diversa ipotesi della “finalità legittima” del trattamento differenziato dipendente da una decisione rientrante nelle competenze degli organi di autogoverno della scuola - 8. Gli scenari futuribili.

Crucifix and workers’ rights in the school environment (waiting for the United Sections of the Court of Cassation)

ABSTRACT: This paper examines the question of whether the display of crucifixes in public school classrooms is compatible with workers’ rights, in particular the right of teachers not to be discriminated against. To do so, it takes as its starting point a recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, which referred the matter to the United Sections of the same Court for a decision.