Contenuti per la categoria: European Court of Human Rights

SOMMARIO: 1. Globalizzazione e difesa dell’identità religiosa - 2. L’apostasia in Italia da atto individuale a comportamento  collettivo - 3. Proselitismo aggressivo e apostasia - 4. La “difesa dello spazio territoriale” nell’ortodossia e il proselitismo tra le confessioni cristiane. Il “modello greco” - 5. La CEDU di fronte al divieto di proselitismo e a tutela della libertà di coscienza - 6. La libertà di non credere nello spazio giuridico dell’Unione Europea.
 

SOMMARIO: 1. Un primo interrogativo: il nostro pluralismo confessionale è “vivo o morto”? - 2 – Il raffronto tra il pluralismo confessionale in Italia e quello dell’Europa – 3. La supervisione internazionale nella tutela dei diritti fondamentali e l’art. 9 della CEDU – 4. Il tema delle relazioni tra gli stati-membri e le chiese e le vicende del “margine di apprezzamento” - 5. Le difficoltà italiane nell’adeguamento ai principi della Convenzione europea – 6. L’elaborazione dei principi ad opera delle Corti e la loro applicazione – 7. Verso uno standard minimo convenzionale? – 8. Le norme della CEDU quali fonti interposte nel sistema gerarchico delle fonti - 9 - L’interpretazione convenzionalmente orientata del diritto interno – 10. (segue) e il contesto dei fini-valori della CEDU - 11. Il sistema integrato delle fonti – 12. L’esecuzione delle decisioni della Cedu - 13. Per un pluralismo di “sana e robusta costituzione”, con qualche considerazione sul pragmatismo.

SOMMAIRE: 1. Introduction. Sur l’existence d’un droit à l’objection de conscience – 2. La consécration du droit à l’objection de conscience: entre revirement de jurisprudence et correction tardive d’une interprétation passée – 3. Les implications du droit à l’objection de conscience: entre souhait d’effectivité et souci d’encadrement – 4. Conclusion.

ABSTRACT: In the Bayatyan v. Armenia case, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has decided to reverse the solution previously adopted by the Chamber and devote a right to conscientious objection. Obviously, this result is remarkable because totally new and against the grain of earlier decisions, particularly the decisions of the former European Commission of Human Rights. To find a breach of Article 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion), the Grand Chamber has used – again – a dynamic and evolutive approach, and has “reiterated (…) that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and of the ideas prevailing in democratic States today” (§ 102).

SOMMARIO: 1. Il fatto - 2. Il ruolo dei Testimoni di Geova e delle altre religioni in Russia dal 1891 a oggi - 3. Il merito - 4. Conclusioni.

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa - 2. Precisazione preliminare: l’efficacia nel diritto interno delle sentenze della Corte Europea dei diritti dell’uomo - 3. Il percorso giudiziario innanzi ai giudici amministrativi dello Stato - 4. La sentenza della Seconda Sezione della Corte di Strasburgo del 3 novembre 2009 - 5. La decisione del “panel” della Corte EDU del 2 marzo 2010 - 6. L'udienza della Grande Chambre del 30 giugno 2010 – 7. La sentenza della GC del 18 marzo 2011 - 8. Le “opinioni separate” dei giudici della GC nel caso Lautsi.

SUMMARY: 1. Introduction - 2. History of and Motivations for the OIC Defamation of Religions Resolutions - 2.a - The OIC Exerts a Concerted Effort to Protect Islam - 2.b - Terrorist Attacks and Danish Cartoons Raise the Stakes - 3. Defamation of Religions: A Permissible Restraint on Freedom of Speech and Expression? - 3.a - History, Basic Elements, and Contemporary Usage of Defamation - 3.b - Interaction Between Defamation of Religions and the Basic Human Rights Enumerated in Major International Instruments - 4. The Evolution of a Resolution - 4.a. 1999-2000: Beginnings - 4.b. 2001: A Pre-9/11 World - 4.c. 2002: Reactions to the Violent Backlash Against Muslims - 4.d. 2003-2004: Fluctuations in Support - 4.e. 2005: Intensification of a Campaign - 4.f. 2006-2007: The Move to the General Assembly - 4.g. 2008: Decreasing Margins of Support - 4.h. 2009: Current Resolution and Recommendations for Application - 5. Consequences of Accepting the Resolutions and Subsequent Enactment of Statutes Designed to Prevent Defamation of Religions - 5.a. Human Rights Committee - 5.b. The European Court of Human Rights - 5.c. Blasphemy, Incitement, and Hate Speech Laws and Their Enforcement - 5.d. Possible Future Statutes and Enforcement Under Defamation of Religions Theory - 6. Alternatives to Defamation of Religions in the U.N. Resolutions - 7. Conclusion.

SOMMARIO: La prima sentenza della Corte Europea dei Diritti Umani del 3 novembre 2009 - Le reazioni in Italia dopo la prima sentenza della Corte di Strasburgo - La sentenza di riesame davanti alla Grande Camera della Corte Europea dei Diritti Umani del 18 marzo 2011 - Le condizioni per mantenere la legittimità dell’esposizione del crocifisso nella scuola statale.

SOMMAIRE: 1. Introduction – 2. Les contraintes de conventionalité et la liberté étatique dans l’organisation de l’environnement scolaire: une articulation délicate pour les symboles religieux – 2.1. La soumission de l’aménagement de l’environnement scolaire à un minimum de contraintes de conventionalité – 2.2. La diversité européenne, source d’une large marge d’appréciation au profit des États – 3. Le principe conventionnel de neutralité: entre acrobaties jurisprudentielles et affaiblissement substantiel – 3.1. La minoration contestable de l’impact des crucifix exposés dans les salles de classe – 3.2. Que reste-t-il du principe de neutralité religieuse en matière scolaire? – 4. La portée du revirement.

ABSTRACT: In a particularly sensitive context, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has finally decided to reverse the solution adopted by the Chamber about the famous case Lautsi v. Italy (ECtHR, 2nd Sect. November 3, 2009, Lautsi v. Italy , Appl. No. 30814/06 – ADL’s November 3, 2009). By a majority of fifteen votes against two, the Grand Chamber refuses to condemn Italy for the presence of crucifixes in classrooms of its schools. Receptive to criticism of the solution in 2009, the Court decided to grant broad freedom to States regarding the presence of religious symbols in the school environment. But doing so, she carries out some acrobatics reasoning and reduces principle of neutrality. Lautsi v. Italy , Appl. No. 30814/06 – ADL’s November 3, 2009). By a majority of fifteen votes against two, the Grand Chamber refuses to condemn Italy for the presence of crucifixes in classrooms of its schools. Receptive to criticism of the solution in 2009, the Court decided to grant broad freedom to States regarding the presence of religious symbols in the school environment. But doing so, she carries out some acrobatics reasoning and reduces principle of neutrality.

Avec une certaine obstination contentieuse, un salarié a régulièrement cherché, depuis 1996, à remettre en cause le système de prélèvement à la source de l’impôt cultuel tel qu’il existe en Allemagne. Dans cet Etat, en effet, les employés doivent remettre à leur employeur respectif “une carte d’impôt sur le salaire" sur  laquelle, entre autres informations, figure  “l’appartenance à une Eglise ou une société religieuse habilitée à lever l’impôt cultuel”. Si le salarié use de son droit de refuser le paiement d’un tel impôt, la mention «--» sera portée dans la case dédiée à l’appartenance religieuse. Dès lors, l’employeur ne retiendra pas sur le salaire la fraction correspondant à cet impôt et ne la transmettra pas au Trésor Public. (Continua)
 

SUMMARY: INTRODUCTION: Key Provision – An Indirect Regulation - The Court is Not a Constitutional Court - Judicial Restraint - A Vision of Religious Freedom - Institutional Dimension of Religious Freedom - I. MODELS: No Arbitrary State Interference - State Neutrality and Impartiality - II. COUNTER-MODELS: Islam – Sects.