Tribunal https://en.ordoiuris.pl/tribunal pl European Parliament favors establishment of tribunal on crimes of aggression against Ukraine https://en.ordoiuris.pl/civil-liberties/european-parliament-favors-establishment-tribunal-crimes-aggression-against-ukraine <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> European Parliament favors establishment of tribunal on crimes of aggression against Ukraine <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> <span lang="" about="/user/116" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">filip.bator</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span>czw., 01/19/2023 - 16:43</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <p class="text-align-justify"><strong>· The European Parliament has adopted a resolution calling for the establishment of a tribunal for crimes of aggression against Ukraine.<br /> · The new tribunal would deal exclusively with the crime of aggression against Ukraine and would complement the International Criminal Court. <br /> · The ICC has jurisdiction to try war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Ukraine, but cannot rule on the crime of Russia's aggression against Ukraine itself.  <br /> · The resolution adopted by the EP was a joint project of all political factions sitting in the EP.<br /> · The EP's position has no binding force, but it is a signal to the European Commission and the European Council that MEPs support efforts to establish the tribunal. </strong></p> <p class="text-align-justify">During the January plenary session of the EP, there was a debate on the initiative to create a special tribunal that would have the competence to judge the crime of Russia's aggression against Ukraine. According to international law, not only the crime of genocide and war crimes committed by the aggressor can be prosecuted (in these cases the International Criminal Court - ICC - has jurisdiction), but also the very fact of an aggression (aggression) of one country against another independent and sovereign state constitutes a violation of the law. </p> <p class="text-align-justify">UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of December 14, 1974 defines aggression as "the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations" and states that "aggressive war is a crime against international peace" and that "aggression entails international responsibility." </p> <p class="text-align-justify">Also, Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute defines the "crime of aggression" as "the planning, preparation, initiation or execution by a person capable of effectively exercising control over or directing the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its nature, gravity and scale, constitutes a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations." The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled in 1946 that aggression is even "the supreme international crime."</p> <p class="text-align-justify">In the case of Russia's aggression against Ukraine, however, the ICC has no jurisdiction. This is because the crime of aggression is defined in the aforementioned Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute. Meanwhile, neither Ukraine nor the Russian Federation has ratified the Rome Statute and amendments related to the crime of aggression (Ukraine has never ratified, while Russia withdrew from these commitments in 2016).</p> <p class="text-align-justify">The solution proposed by the European Commission and supported by the EP today is the creation of a special independent international tribunal based on a multilateral treaty, or a specialized court integrated into the national justice system with international judges. Such a court would be complementary to the ICC - it would deal exclusively with the crime of aggression in Ukraine, while the ICC would deal with war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Russians in Ukraine. January 19. The EP almost unanimously adopted a resolution in which it supported the establishment of such a court and called on the entire international community to begin work on its establishment without delay. </p> <p class="text-align-justify">"Such a step will require strong support from the UN and essentially the entire international community, but it seems feasible. Resolutions to date by the UN General Assembly, the European Parliament and national parliaments seem to confirm the existence of political will to pursue the idea of establishing a new court. Similar steps have been taken in the past - we are familiar with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, or the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, among others. Today's resolution is only a non-binding declaration, but it is a clear signal to the Commission that Parliament supports the course of action taken by it and the European Council," commented Anna Kubacka of the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.</p> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Kategoria } <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--image.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_formatter' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * image-formatter--node--aktualnosc--field-zdjecie.html.twig x image-formatter.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_style' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/artykul_full/public/2023-01/AdobeStock_507377360.jpeg?itok=d_lo0ZPh" width="250" height="125" alt="" typeof="foaf:Image" /> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--string.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div>Adobe Stock</div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-tagi--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--field-tagi.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-tagi.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> <hr> <ul class="tags_list"> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/ukraine" hreflang="pl">ukraine</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/russia" hreflang="pl">Russia</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/tribunal" hreflang="pl">Tribunal</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/european-parliament" hreflang="pl">European Parliament</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/agression" hreflang="pl">agression</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/war" hreflang="pl">war</a></li> </ul> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> Thu, 19 Jan 2023 15:43:27 +0000 filip.bator 1395 at https://en.ordoiuris.pl Ordo Iuris intervenes in Strasbourg to defend the identity of marriage https://en.ordoiuris.pl/family-and-marriage/ordo-iuris-intervenes-strasbourg-defend-identity-marriage <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Ordo Iuris intervenes in Strasbourg to defend the identity of marriage <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> <span lang="" about="/user/116" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">filip.bator</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span>pt., 08/27/2021 - 16:19</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:36.0pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">• <b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">Two Bulgarian women have filed a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights against their own country, whose authorities refused to register their ‘marriage’ concluded in the United Kingdom.</span></b></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:36.0pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">• <b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">The decision was upheld by the courts in Bulgaria, including the Supreme Administrative Court, which indicated that only a union between a man and a woman can be considered a marriage.</span></b></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:36.0pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">• <b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">The Ordo Iuris Institute submitted an amicus curiae brief in this case to the Court.</span></b></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:36.0pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">• <b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">The lawyers stressed that EU Member States do not have to recognise the so-called ‘same-sex marriages’ concluded abroad. This is also confirmed by court rulings from various countries.</span></b></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">Following the Supreme Administrative Court’s ruling, Darina Kollova and Lillia Babulkova appealed to the ECtHR. The women used legal assistance from Deystva (Действие), a Bulgarian LGBT organisation. They alleged that Bulgaria violated their right to respect for their family life and the right to non-discrimination.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">The Ordo Iuris Institute applied to the Chairman of the IV Section of the ECtHR with a request for permission to join the proceedings as an amicus curiae. After obtaining the permit, the Institute sent an amicus curiae brief to the Strasbourg Court, in which it argued that Member States do not have to recognise so-called same-sex marriages concluded by their citizens abroad. The Institute’s brief presents, for example, rulings of Polish, Italian and Bulgarian courts which refused to recognise foreign homosexual ‘marriages’, citing the protection of public morality, public order or the definition of marriage in force in national law. In its jurisprudence to date, the Court itself has recognised the authority of independent national courts, only exceptionally allowing the established line of jurisprudence in a given country to be challenged. In the case of the recognition of same-sex unions, there is no reason for such intervention.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">‘In accordance with the case-law of the ECtHR, states have a so-called margin of freedom in areas of social life that are morally controversial, and the issue of same-sex relationships is certainly one of these. Unfortunately, in practice, the Court is gradually retreating from this position, as evidenced by the 2015, 2017 and 2021 judgements that ordered Italy and Russia to institutionalise same-sex relationships. Nevertheless, we are intervening in more cases of this type reaching the ECtHR, with whose help LGBT activists are trying to force a change in the definition of marriage and family in their countries, even against the views of the majority of their compatriots. This is the case in Bulgaria, where over 70% of the population opposes the introduction of so-called gay marriages. In our opinions sent to Strasbourg, we try to convince the Court that states should not be forced to establish or recognise legal institutions which raise moral objections of the majority of society’, said Karolina Pawłowska from the International Law Centre of the Ordo Iuris Institute.</span></span></span></p> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Kategoria } <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--image.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_formatter' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * image-formatter--node--aktualnosc--field-zdjecie.html.twig x image-formatter.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_style' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/artykul_full/public/2021-08/AdobeStock_127003751.jpeg?itok=LTe0pHwd" width="250" height="125" alt="" typeof="foaf:Image" /> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--string.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div>Adobe Stock</div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-tagi--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--field-tagi.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-tagi.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> <hr> <ul class="tags_list"> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/bulgaria" hreflang="pl">bulgaria</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/women" hreflang="pl">women</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/lgbt" hreflang="pl">LGBT</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/strasbourg" hreflang="pl">Strasbourg</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/tribunal" hreflang="pl">Tribunal</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/marriage" hreflang="pl">marriage</a></li> </ul> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:19:27 +0000 filip.bator 1231 at https://en.ordoiuris.pl Judicial pronouncements of the EU Member States confirm the primacy of national constitutions https://en.ordoiuris.pl/institute-activity/judicial-pronouncements-eu-member-states-confirm-primacy-national-constitutions <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Judicial pronouncements of the EU Member States confirm the primacy of national constitutions <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> <span lang="" about="/user/116" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">filip.bator</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span>pt., 07/30/2021 - 15:57</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <p class="text-align-justify"><strong>● The Constitutional Tribunal, at the request of the Prime Minister, will rule whether the Constitution of the Republic of Poland takes precedence over EU law, wherein he indicated that the CJEU exceeded its powers.</strong></p> <p class="text-align-justify"><strong>● Earlier, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that if a national court finds that domestic law infringes EU law, it has an obligation to refrain from applying such provisions of domestic law, regardless of whether they are statutory or constitutional.</strong></p> <p class="text-align-justify"><strong>● In accordance with the content of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the established jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal, the norms of the Polish Constitution take precedence over other legal norms. The verdict on the compliance of selected provisions of the Treaty on European Union with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland may be issued on August 3.</strong></p> <p class="text-align-justify"><strong>● The Ordo Iuris Institute has prepared an analysis of the jurisprudence of eight European Union Member States, which confirms that for nearly 50 years the constitutional courts have consistently recognised the primacy of the national constitution over EU law.</strong></p> <p class="text-align-justify">The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is of the opinion that after a court of a Member State finds that domestic law infringes European Union law, the national court is obliged to refrain from applying conflicting national provisions, regardless of whether they have a statutory or constitutional status. This view was applied to subsequent amendments to the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), which, among other elements, concerned the possibility of appealing against resolutions of the National Council of the Judiciary on the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court (SN). Taking into account the judgement of the CJEU allowed the Supreme Administrative Court to process appeals of candidates for judges of the Supreme Court against resolutions of the National Council of the Judiciary rejecting their candidatures.</p> <p class="text-align-justify">The Prime Minister submitted the request for a decision by the Constitutional Tribunal on whether the Constitution of the Republic of Poland takes precedence over EU law. According to the applicant, the declaration of the superiority of EU law over the Constitution of the Republic of Poland exceeds the competences of the CJEU. At the same time, the applicant has emphasised that he does not question the principle of the primacy of EU law over national lower-level standards (laws, regulations). The verdict on the case may be issued on August 3.</p> <p class="text-align-justify">According to the established jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal (in various configurations), the norms of the Polish Constitution take precedence over other legal standards, including EU law. The Ordo Iuris Institute has prepared an analysis of the jurisprudence of eight European Union Member States, which confirmed that over the last few decades the constitutional courts have consistently recognised the primacy of the national constitution over EU law.</p> <p class="text-align-justify">“Constitutional courts of the European Union Member States have repeatedly held on the primacy of national constitutions over EU law. The established position of the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland is also in line with the jurisprudence of both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ European Union constitutional courts, which set clear boundaries for the exercise by EU bodies of the</p> <p class="text-align-justify">competence conferred on them by the Member States. The verdict, which may be issued on August 3, will probably be an opportunity to maintain and develop the existing jurisprudence”, said Mr. Łukasz Bernaciński, Deputy Director of the Centre for Legislative Analysis of the Ordo Iuris Institute.</p> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Kategoria } <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--image.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_formatter' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * image-formatter--node--aktualnosc--field-zdjecie.html.twig x image-formatter.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_style' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/artykul_full/public/2021-08/AdobeStock_165551345.jpeg?itok=h_IeynlD" width="250" height="125" alt="" typeof="foaf:Image" /> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--string.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div>Adobe Stock</div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-tagi--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--field-tagi.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-tagi.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> <hr> <ul class="tags_list"> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/constitution" hreflang="pl">constitution</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/tribunal" hreflang="pl">Tribunal</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/european-union" hreflang="pl">European Union</a></li> </ul> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> Fri, 30 Jul 2021 13:57:17 +0000 filip.bator 1225 at https://en.ordoiuris.pl Iceland did not break the law by refusing to register two ‘mothers’ https://en.ordoiuris.pl/family-and-marriage/iceland-did-not-break-law-refusing-register-two-mothers <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Iceland did not break the law by refusing to register two ‘mothers’ <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> <span lang="" about="/user/116" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">filip.bator</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span>czw., 07/01/2021 - 15:31</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt">• <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%">The Strasbourg Court rejected the complaint of a female couple claiming that their right to respect for family life had been violated by Iceland’s refusal to recognise them as the mothers of a child born to a commercial arrangement with an American surrogate.</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt">• <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%">According to the Icelandic law, the mother of a child is the woman who has given birth to him or her and surrogate motherhood is prohibited. The couple who filed the complaint had violated the prohibition by buying the surrogacy ‘service’ in the USA and later bringing the child to Iceland.</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt">• <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%">Iceland refused to recognise the female couple as the child’s parents but granted them custody of the child. After the couple separated, the authorities extended custody of the child to their new respective partners. Thus, the boy de facto has four ‘mothers’, even though they are not formally his parents.</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt">• <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%">The Ordo Iuris Institute submitted an opinion to the Court claiming inconsistency of surrogacy with women's and children's rights, as well as illegality of the practice of using foreign surrogacy to evade the prohibition. The ECHR recognised some of the claims made by the Institute.</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%">“The Court’s judgment is a partial success. On the one hand, the Court rightly observed that the prohibition of surrogacy is supposed to protect women's and children's rights and that States may recognise the woman who has given birth to a child as the mother and are not obliged to acknowledge foreign birth certificates that provide false information about parents. Unfortunately, though, the Court also approved evasion of the prohibition of surrogacy by determining that if a couple brings a child from abroad to their own country then, even if they are not relatives, the State should, as a rule, grant them some form of custody. Contrary to our opinion, the Court also determined that Article 8 of the Convention protects potential family ‘relationships’ that can hypothetically develop in the future”, says Karolina Pawłowska, Director of the Ordo Iuris International Law Centre. </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%">The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the prohibition of surrogate motherhood is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights as it protects women's rights and children's rights. The Court also determined that couples who use a surrogacy service cannot later request to be recognised as the parents of the child conceived through surrogacy if they are not related by blood. The Ordo Iuris Institute had earlier intervened in this case offering a similar opinion as amicus curiae. </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%">The case involved two women living in a same-sex ‘marriage’ in Iceland. Using a surrogacy agency, they paid an American woman from the state of California to undergo in vitro fertilisation and deliver a child for them. In 2013, a boy, conceived from the ovum and sperm of anonymous donors, was born and the biological mother relinquished her parental rights to the above-mentioned couple. The women took the child back to Iceland, where they applied for his registration in order to ascertain their parental rights and to register the child as an Icelandic citizen. The Icelandic authorities refused to register the boy on the grounds that he was the son of the American woman and was not in any way related to the applicants. According to Icelandic law, the mother of a child is the woman who has given birth to the child, and, in the case, the mother was the above-mentioned US citizen. Surrogacy is illegal in Iceland. The Icelandic office for children took formal custody of the boy, but at the same time granted the women temporary adoption rights until final resolution of the case. In the meantime, the women divorced and later formed respective new relationships. Finally, the two women and their respective ‘wives’ were granted permanent custody of the boy, who, de facto, has four ‘mothers’, even though they are not formally his parents. </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%">Because of that, in 2017, the ex-couple brought a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. They claimed that the Icelandic authorities had violated their right to respect for family life by refusing to recognise them as the boy’s parents (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights). </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%">The Ordo Iuris Institute offered its amicus curiae opinion to the European Court of Human Rights, stating that the practice of surrogate motherhood violates human rights and treats the surrogate woman and her child as objects. The Institute claimed that States have the right to prohibit surrogacy and refuse to recognise the legal consequences of foreign birth certificates containing false information about parents (claiming that persons who are not related to a child are the child’s parents). A child has the right to know his or her biological roots and the birth certificate should be the source of information about the child’s parents. Also, the Institute noted that Article 8 of the Convention serves to protect actual family bonds rather than potential relations that can develop between a newborn child and a couple of unrelated individuals. </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%">This year, the Strasbourg Court issued a judgment stating that the Icelandic authorities had not violated Article 8 of the Convention by refusing to register the two women as the child’s parents. The Court noted that Iceland had the right to prohibit surrogacy in order to protect women’s interests as well as the child’s right to know about his or her natural origins. The Court also determined that there had been no violation of the right to respect for family life since the child had remained under the applicants’ custody from the beginning of his stay in Iceland. </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%">Case of <i>Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and others v. Iceland</i>, Judgment of the ECHR of 18 May 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Kategoria } <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--image.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_formatter' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * image-formatter--node--aktualnosc--field-zdjecie.html.twig x image-formatter.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_style' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/artykul_full/public/2021-07/AdobeStock_199238774.jpeg?itok=m84lEwKo" width="250" height="125" alt="" typeof="foaf:Image" /> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--string.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div>Adobe Stock</div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-tagi--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--field-tagi.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-tagi.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> <hr> <ul class="tags_list"> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/iceland" hreflang="pl">iceland</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/family" hreflang="pl">family</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/strasbourg" hreflang="pl">Strasbourg</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/tribunal" hreflang="pl">Tribunal</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/child" hreflang="pl">child</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/mother" hreflang="pl">mother</a></li> </ul> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> Thu, 01 Jul 2021 13:31:03 +0000 filip.bator 1213 at https://en.ordoiuris.pl Strasbourg Court judgment contrary to biological facts. Bulgarian authorities must recognise a woman as a man https://en.ordoiuris.pl/family-and-marriage/strasbourg-court-judgment-contrary-biological-facts-bulgarian-authorities-must <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Strasbourg Court judgment contrary to biological facts. Bulgarian authorities must recognise a woman as a man <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> <span lang="" about="/user/116" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">filip.bator</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span>pon., 08/31/2020 - 11:28</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with a Bulgarian woman who, contrary to Bulgarian law, demanded that she be recognised as a man. The courts refused to register her as a man in the civil status records, as her legal gender must correspond to her biological gender. As a court of second instance emphasised, changing a person’s appearance does not change their actual gender. However, ECHR considered the decision of the Bulgarian authorities an infringement of the woman’s right to privacy.</span></span></b> </span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">In 2015, a female Bulgarian citizen applied to a court to change her name, registered gender and identification number in the civil status records. She supported the request with medical records which showed that she had previously undergone breast removal surgery, which was to make her look like a man. The court rejected the request, indicating that according to the Bulgarian law there are two genders, and the gender recorded in the civil status records must correspond to the biological gender of the person concerned. Bulgarian law did not provide for the possibility of “sex reassignment”. A similar decision was taken by a court of second instance, which added that a surgery can change a person’s appearance, but cannot change their actual gender.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">In 2016 the woman filed a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, alleging that her right to privacy was violated. ECHR agreed with her, stating that Bulgaria breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court concluded that a part of the right to privacy is “the right to acknowledge the legal effects of sex reassignment”, which was supposedly violated in this case. ECHR remarked that although the Bulgarian law did not provide for the procedure of sex reassignment, the case law allow such a possibility, and the courts in this case did not take account of that case law. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">“It is yet another judgment of the Court attempting to establish a right to self-define one’s gender despite basic biological facts and the applicable international law. For several years now the Court, in its judgments on the so-called transsexuals, has been reiterating that everyone has the right to choose their own gender, and the state has a duty to recognise this – regardless of whether or not such a person wants to look like the opposite sex. In practice, therefore, the Court requires Member States to treat transsexual women as men, and men with this disorder as women, even if they have not undergone any surgery or hormone therapy. The Court’s case law undermines the fundamental principle of the law of civil status records, which states that personal data – one’s name, registered gender, ID number – should reflect the biological reality. If one’s gender is decided on the basis of one’s subjective feeling, in the nearest future this may lead to the undermining of the identity of marriage as a relationship between a woman and a man,” said Filip Furman, PhD, Director of the Centre for Social Sciences and Bioethics of the Ordo Iuris Institute.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">The case of Y. T. v. Bulgaria, ECHR judgment of 9 July 2020</span></span></i></span></span></p> <p style="margin:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-left:0cm"> </p> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Kategoria } <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--image.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_formatter' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * image-formatter--node--aktualnosc--field-zdjecie.html.twig x image-formatter.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_style' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/artykul_full/public/2020-08/AdobeStock_127003751.jpeg?itok=Beyspi0t" width="250" height="125" alt="" typeof="foaf:Image" /> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--string.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div>Adobe Stock</div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-tagi--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--field-tagi.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-tagi.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> <hr> <ul class="tags_list"> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/bulgaria" hreflang="pl">bulgaria</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/tribunal" hreflang="pl">Tribunal</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/ordo-iuris" hreflang="pl">Ordo Iuris</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/human-rights" hreflang="pl">human rights</a></li> </ul> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> Mon, 31 Aug 2020 09:28:45 +0000 filip.bator 1123 at https://en.ordoiuris.pl Strasbourg Court takes the mother’s side. The woman has the right to contact her child https://en.ordoiuris.pl/family-and-marriage/strasbourg-court-takes-mothers-side-woman-has-right-contact-her-child <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Strasbourg Court takes the mother’s side. The woman has the right to contact her child <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> <span lang="" about="/user/116" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">filip.bator</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span>śr., 08/19/2020 - 12:15</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">The European Court of Human Rights allowed a Nigerian woman living in Spain to keep in touch with her son. The woman had fought for the right to visit her child regularly and for the suspension of his adoption for a few years. At that time, the Nigerian obtained approval to stay in Spain and found a job. The Court recognised the complaint filed by the woman due to the violation of her right to respect for family life.</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">At the end of 2008, the Nigerian bore a son. The mother struggled with a difficult personal situation – when her son was two months’ old, she put him in a shelter for orphans, stressing that she still wanted to keep in touch with him. After a couple of months, the Spanish Directorate for Family suspended the woman’s right to regular visits. In spite of the mother’s explicit objection, the institution also started an adoption procedure. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">The woman spent the next five years in courtrooms, appealing to further instances, with a request for the restoration of her right to visit her child and the suspension of the adoption procedure. In the course of the proceedings, the Nigerian showed the will to stabilise her life: she fulfilled the requirements for a temporary permission to stay in Spain, she took part in a Spanish social integration programme, and she found a job. In 2014, the court temporarily suspended the adoption of the child, but a year later it changed its position and allowed the boy to be adopted by a new family, despite the mother’s objection. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">In 2016, the woman filed a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, claiming the violation of her right to respect for family life guaranteed in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court recognised the Nigerian woman’s complaint. The ECHR stressed that separating a child from its biological mother and giving it up for adoption should be treated as a last resort, when the implementation of less radical measures is not possible. However, the Spanish authorities isolated the child from its mother already after three months and did not make any real attempts to renew the relationship between them for the next few years. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">“This sentence is good news for all families treated unjustly by social welfare officers. The Court once again reminds us that the child’s bond with its biological parents is an undeniable and objective value. Social welfare offices often ignore this value and, as such, prefer solving family problems by transferring a child from its natural family to an adoptive family. This should be done only as a last resort, as the Court rightly stated. Every parent has the right to a second chance, and the state should make an attempt to help improve family relations before deciding to break them off completely,” emphasised Karolina Pawłowska, Director of the Centre of International Law of the Ordo Iuris Institute. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Case of Omorefe v. Spain, ECHR’s decision of 23 June 2020</span></span></i></span></span></p> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Kategoria } <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--image.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_formatter' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * image-formatter--node--aktualnosc--field-zdjecie.html.twig x image-formatter.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_style' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/artykul_full/public/2020-08/AdobeStock_274015949.jpeg?itok=EsPRj55m" width="250" height="125" alt="" typeof="foaf:Image" /> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--string.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div>Adobe Stock</div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-tagi--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--field-tagi.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-tagi.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> <hr> <ul class="tags_list"> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/spain" hreflang="pl">Spain</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/ordo-iuris" hreflang="pl">Ordo Iuris</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/family" hreflang="pl">family</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/strasbourg" hreflang="pl">Strasbourg</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/human-rights" hreflang="pl">human rights</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/tribunal" hreflang="pl">Tribunal</a></li> </ul> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:15:41 +0000 filip.bator 1121 at https://en.ordoiuris.pl Strasbourg Court strikes at freedom of speech. The fine for the criticism of ideological classes is maintained https://en.ordoiuris.pl/civil-liberties/strasbourg-court-strikes-freedom-speech-fine-criticism-ideological-classes <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Strasbourg Court strikes at freedom of speech. The fine for the criticism of ideological classes is maintained <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> <span lang="" about="/user/116" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">filip.bator</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span>śr., 08/05/2020 - 10:23</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">The European Court of Human Rights rejected the complaint of the Icelandic citizen sentenced to a fine for the criticism of the introduction of classes promoting the LGBT ideology in schools. The ECHR stated that the man used ‘hate speech’, even though the European Convention of Human Rights does not specify this concept as a reason for restricting the freedom of speech. This term is not used in any act of international law, either. The Icelandic man had to pay around EUR 625 for his Internet post.</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">In 2015, the municipal council of the town of Hafnarfjörður, Iceland, adopted a resolution on the introduction of classes promoting the LGBT ideology in primary and secondary schools. One of the Internet users criticised this idea in his comment to the article on the website of a local radio station, accusing the town authorities of ‘the indoctrination of children’ and calling homosexuality a ‘sexual deviation’. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Soon afterwards, the Icelandic association of LGBT activists submitted a denunciation against the author of the comment to the prosecutor, accusing him of having committed the offence of defamation of a sexual minority. The court of first instance acquitted the Internet user, finding his opinion to be within the limits of the freedom of speech. However, the Icelandic Supreme Court overturned this decision and sentenced the man to a fine of 100,000 krona (the equivalent value of around EUR 625). In the court’s view, the comment of the person concerned was ‘severely hurtful and prejudicial’, particularly because he could have expressed his objection to the decision of the municipal council in a different way. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">In 2018, the Icelandic man brought a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, claiming the violation of his right to free speech. In June 2020, the ECHR found the complaint to be ‘obviously inadmissible,’ stating that the man’s comment constituted ‘hate speech’. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">‘It is another decision in which the European Court of Human Rights uses the vague concept of “hate speech” towards opinions criticising the promotion of homosexuality in public space. This proves an alarming tendency to make breaches in the freedom of speech guaranteed in Article 10 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by means of questionable and imprecise interpretations. The freedom of speech may be restricted in strictly defined cases listed in Article 10(2) of the Convention, which contains no reference to <strong><span style="border:none windowtext 1.0pt; background:white; padding:0cm"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="font-weight:normal">“</span></span></span></strong>hate speech<strong><span style="border:none windowtext 1.0pt; background:white; padding:0cm"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="font-weight:normal">”</span></span></span></strong> – in addition to which, none of the acts of international law uses this concept. However, the Court not only approved, but even regarded as <strong><span style="border:none windowtext 1.0pt; background:white; padding:0cm"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="font-weight:normal">“</span></span></span></strong>obvious<strong><span style="border:none windowtext 1.0pt; background:white; padding:0cm"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="font-weight:normal">”</span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong>the restriction of the freedom of criticising the promotion of homosexuality in public space – in this case, schools – stating that it was justified by the <strong><span style="border:none windowtext 1.0pt; background:white; padding:0cm"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="font-weight:normal">“</span></span></span></strong>defence of the right of homosexual persons to privacy<strong><span style="border:none windowtext 1.0pt; background:white; padding:0cm"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="font-weight:normal">”</span></span></span></strong>. It is difficult to understand such justification, since the comment did not refer to the private life of homosexuals, but to the introduction of classes promoting the demands of the LGBT movement in public primary and secondary schools,’ commented Karolina Pawłowska from the Centre of International Law of Ordo Iuris Institute. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Case of Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl v. Iceland, ECHR’s decision of 11.06.2020</span></span></i></span></span></p> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Kategoria } <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--image.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_formatter' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * image-formatter--node--aktualnosc--field-zdjecie.html.twig x image-formatter.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_style' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/artykul_full/public/2020-08/AdobeStock_44580320.jpeg?itok=ZyjgJhVx" width="250" height="125" alt="" typeof="foaf:Image" /> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--string.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div>Adobe Stock</div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-tagi--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--field-tagi.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-tagi.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> <hr> <ul class="tags_list"> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/iceland" hreflang="pl">iceland</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/strasbourg" hreflang="pl">Strasbourg</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/tribunal" hreflang="pl">Tribunal</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/ordo-iuris" hreflang="pl">Ordo Iuris</a></li> </ul> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> Wed, 05 Aug 2020 08:23:54 +0000 filip.bator 1116 at https://en.ordoiuris.pl They were not allowed to draw graffiti. LGBT activists submit a complaint against the Georgian government to the European Court of Human Rights https://en.ordoiuris.pl/civil-liberties/they-were-not-allowed-draw-graffiti-lgbt-activists-submit-complaint-against <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> They were not allowed to draw graffiti. LGBT activists submit a complaint against the Georgian government to the European Court of Human Rights <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> <span lang="" about="/user/116" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">filip.bator</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span>czw., 04/16/2020 - 16:22</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <p class="text-align-justify" style="text-align:justify; margin-right:0cm; margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">The European Court of Human Rights will deal with the complaint of LGBT activists from Georgia. As a basis for human rights violations, the activists have pointed at the fact that the police prevented them from drawing graffiti on the wall of the Orthodox Church patriarch's residence. Another reason for the complaint was the government's alleged failure to provide sufficient security measures, which supposedly forced the activists to cancel their ideological demonstration. The Ordo Iuris Institute joined the case acting as amicus curiae.</span></span></strong></span></span></p> <p class="text-align-justify" style="text-align:justify; margin-right:0cm; margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Last autumn, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg reported to the Georgian government that LGBT activists had submitted a complaint against it. In the complaint, the activists accused the Georgian police of violating their right to personal freedom. The reason for the complaint was the fact that the activists were detained for 12 hours in order to prevent them from drawing graffiti on the wall of the Orthodox Church patriarch's residence. Another accusation put forward by the activists was the alleged violation of their freedom of assembly. The activists felt forced to cancel the demonstration on the occasion of the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia because, in their opinion, the government did not provide them with adequate security measures.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="text-align-justify" style="text-align:justify; margin-right:0cm; margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">In March 2020, the Ordo Iuris Institute joined the case acting as amicus curiae, having obtained the approval of the President of Section V of the Strasbourg Court, which is dealing with the complaint. In its written statement, the Institute indicated that according to settled case-law of the ECtHR, the burden of proving human rights violations lies with the applicants and not with the government accused of the violation. Therefore, the LGBT activists that accuse the government of denying them the protection necessary for the safe conduct of the demonstration should provide concrete evidence showing that their lives were genuinely in danger and that the authorities were indeed not willing to help. Otherwise, the allegation of violating the freedom of assembly by preventing the conduction of the demonstration in a safe environment will have to be considered unfounded.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="text-align-justify" style="text-align:justify; margin-right:0cm; margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">‘Regarding the complaint against the actions taken by the Georgian police to prevent the activists from drawing graffiti on the residence of the Orthodox Church patriarch, there is no doubt that the state has the right to restrict personal freedom – for example, by preventive detention of persons suspected of intending to commit a crime – in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others. In this particular case, the police protected private property against an act of vandalism and, at the same time, the religious feelings of Orthodox believers, for whom the person of the patriarch deserves respect’ – commented Karolina Pawłowska, Director of the International Law Centre of the Ordo Iuris Institute.</span></span></span></span></p> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Kategoria } <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--image.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_formatter' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * image-formatter--node--aktualnosc--field-zdjecie.html.twig x image-formatter.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_style' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/artykul_full/public/2020-04/AdobeStock_62187685_0.jpeg?itok=b5tj2nn3" width="250" height="125" alt="" typeof="foaf:Image" /> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--string.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div>Adobe Stock</div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-tagi--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--field-tagi.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-tagi.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> <hr> <ul class="tags_list"> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/georgia" hreflang="pl">georgia</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/lgbt" hreflang="pl">LGBT</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/graffiti" hreflang="pl">graffiti</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/police" hreflang="pl">police</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/strasbourg" hreflang="pl">Strasbourg</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/tribunal" hreflang="pl">Tribunal</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/human-rights" hreflang="pl">human rights</a></li> </ul> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:22:13 +0000 filip.bator 1061 at https://en.ordoiuris.pl Further violations of parents' rights in Norway. The Strasbourg Court issued its ruling https://en.ordoiuris.pl/family-and-marriage/further-violations-parents-rights-norway-strasbourg-court-issued-its-ruling <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Further violations of parents&#039; rights in Norway. The Strasbourg Court issued its ruling <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--title--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> <span lang="" about="/user/116" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">filip.bator</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span>wt., 03/24/2020 - 11:03</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">The European Court of Human Rights has once again ruled that Norway has violated parents' rights. The cases concern two families broken up by the child protection office - Barnevernet, on the basis of false accusations of mental problems of the parents. In the first case, the evidence for this was supposed to be "excessive" concern for the children's health. These rulings confirm the phenomenon of systemic violations of human rights in Norway.</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">The first case concerned the marriage of a Swede and a Romanian, who moved to Norway in 2013. They moved to the country with their three sons, who were 13 years old, 8 years old and 6 years old. Shortly after the move, Barnevernet issued an order to immediately take the three boys from their parents because of alleged "insufficient insight into their problems." According to officials, the parents' concern for the children's health was excessive. In the eldest son, the parents began to notice symptoms that might indicate the occurrence of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a genetic disease manifested by excessive flaccidity and tenderness of the skin and by joint instability. The parents also noticed similar symptoms in their younger sons.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">After Barnevernet's intervention, the children were transferred to foster care, and the parents were granted the right to two hours of meetings per month, which were soon limited to four half-hour meetings per year. During the meetings, the parents could not communicate with the boys in their native language - Romanian. The couple appealed the decision to court. In the course of the proceedings, the expert's opinions confirmed that, contrary to Barnevernet's suggestions, the parents did not have mental problems, and their oldest son actually required special care, although it was not determined whether he suffered from EDS. Moreover, it was determined that the eldest boy did not handle well the separation from his parents and wished to return home as soon as possible.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">In 2015 the Superior Court ruled that Barnevernet's decision to take the children from their parents was unfounded. However, the court also ruled that only the eldest boy could return home because the other two allegedly had already bonded with their new place of residence. At the same time, the court granted the parents the right to six six-hour meetings with the two sons per year, under the supervision of a social worker.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Due to this decision, the children's father lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The ECHR ruled that Norway had violated the father's right to respect for his family life, as guaranteed by Protocol No. 8 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court drew attention to the inconsistency in the Norwegian court's ruling, which on the one hand declared Barnevernet's decision to be entirely unfounded, and on the other hand annulled it only in the part concerning the oldest boy. In addition, the judges reminded that the state has the duty to make efforts to reunite the child with its biological parents. Meanwhile, throughout the whole separation period, the authorities did not make any efforts in this direction - the allowed meetings between the parents and their children were rare and they could not communicate with each other in their native language.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">The second case concerned a Norwegian married couple, who in 2008 had their 2.5-year-old son taken away by Barnevernet, because of their alleged mental illness. In 2014 The Superior Court upheld Barnevernet's decision, indicating that after six years of separation, the child allegedly felt more connection with his foster carers than with its biological parents. The couple then lodged a complaint with the Strasbourg Court, which, as in the previous case, found that Norway had violated their right to respect for family life.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">"These are further rulings which confirm that Norway has a systemic problem with violating parents' rights. The course of action is as follows - first Barnevernet takes the child away from the parents, often based on anecdotal evidence, then passes it to foster care, where it spends many months, and sometimes several years, and then, even if the court finds the decision of the office to be incorrect, it maintains it in force, citing the loss of bond between the child and its parents. The Strasbourg Court has clearly condemned this reasoning. If the state is the cause of the loss of family ties, it cannot justify keeping children in foster care on this basis. As the biological parents are the child's first carers,” said Karolina Pawłowska, Director of the International Law Centre of the Ordo Iuris Institute.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><em><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Hernehult v. Norway and Pedersen and Others v. Norway, ECHR judgments of 10 March 2020.</span></span></em></span></span></p> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--body--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> Kategoria } <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-kategoria--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zdjecie.html.twig * field--image.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_formatter' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * image-formatter--node--aktualnosc--field-zdjecie.html.twig x image-formatter.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_style' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/artykul_full/public/2020-03/AdobeStock_136971271.jpeg?itok=uMICTS64" width="250" height="125" alt="" typeof="foaf:Image" /> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/news_block/field--node--field-zdjecie--aktualnosc.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--node--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-zrodlo-zdjecia.html.twig * field--string.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div>Adobe Stock</div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-tagi--aktualnosc.html.twig x field--node--field-tagi.html.twig * field--node--aktualnosc.html.twig * field--field-tagi.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> <hr> <ul class="tags_list"> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/norway" hreflang="pl">norway</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/barnebernet" hreflang="pl">barnebernet</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/family" hreflang="pl">family</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/children" hreflang="pl">children</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/strasbourg" hreflang="pl">Strasbourg</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/parents" hreflang="pl">parents</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/human-rights" hreflang="pl">human rights</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/tribunal" hreflang="pl">Tribunal</a></li> </ul> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> Tue, 24 Mar 2020 10:03:10 +0000 filip.bator 1050 at https://en.ordoiuris.pl An analysis of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgement of 14 January 2020 in the case of Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania https://en.ordoiuris.pl/civil-liberties/analysis-european-court-human-rights-echr-judgement-14-january-2020-case-beizaras <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--title--analiza-prawna.html.twig * field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--analiza-prawna.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/analyses_block/field--node--title--analiza-prawna.html.twig' --> An analysis of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgement of 14 January 2020 in the case of Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/analyses_block/field--node--title--analiza-prawna.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--analiza-prawna.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--analiza-prawna.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> <span lang="" about="/user/116" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">filip.bator</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/user/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--analiza-prawna.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--analiza-prawna.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span>czw., 02/13/2020 - 13:43</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/navigation/links.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--body--analiza-prawna.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--analiza-prawna.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/analyses_block/field--node--body--analiza-prawna.html.twig' --> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Factual circumstances</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">The case of Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania concerns a homosexual couple, two activists of a Lithuanian LGBT non-governmental organisation called Lietuvos Gėjų Lyga (LGL Association), who had posted a photograph on Facebook depicting their romantic kiss. Their picture received 800 comments, 31 of which contained aggressive and vulgar remarks addressing both men, such as: "If I was allowed to, I would shoot every single one of them”, “Burn in hell”, “Into the gas chamber with the pair of them”, “You should be exterminated”, “I’ll buy you a free honeymoon trip to the crematorium”, and “It’s not only the Jews that Hitler should have burned”. In the name of the couple, LGL Association reported a crime of incitement to violence and hate to the Prosecutor General's Office. The Prosecutor's Office took the decision not to initiate the investigation, claiming that although the behaviour of the authors of the comments was immoral, it was not of a criminal nature, given that the Internet users solely expressed their opinion about homosexual people with no intention of inciting violence or hatred. The decision of the Prosecutor's Office was upheld by the courts, which emphasised that the homosexual couple deliberately posted their photo as public, addressing it not only to their like-minded friends, but to the entire Facebook community. In the opinion of the courts, such an action could therefore be interpreted as constituting “an attempt to deliberately tease or shock individuals with different views”. As both men subsequently admitted, the goal of making their photo public and disseminating it was to “provoke a discussion on gay rights in Lithuania”.</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights</span></span></u></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, to which the complaint was lodged by both men, did not share the position of the Lithuanian courts. The Court found it clear that comments on Facebook page affected the applicants’ “psychological well-being and dignity” (§117). The Court also noted that the quoted comments under the posted picture cannot be considered only as unethical, since some of them directly called for violence (§125, 152–154).</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">In the course of this case, the Court made several comments of a general nature. The Court stated that exercising the right to free speech in an “irresponsible manner”, as exemplified by the “homophobic hate speech”, may require the state to pursue specific, positive actions for the criticised social group (§125). In the assessment of the Court, hate speech is not only incitement to violence, but also an expression of a broadly understood “hate” consisting in an “attack on the mental integrity” of other people – the most serious forms of such conceived hate speech require protection by the criminal law (§128). In this case, the state failed to fulfil the obligation of protecting the “mental integrity” of the complainants against hateful comments on account of the “discriminatory state of mind” of the relevant public authorities responsible for carrying out the investigation (§129).</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">For these reasons, the Court found that the complainants’ rights to respect for their private life, and the right to non-discrimination have been infringed (Article 8 and Article 14 of the Convention).</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Commentary:</span></span></u></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">1. The sole recognition of infringement of the complainants’ rights to the protection of their private life in principle does not raise doubts. The right to privacy in the case law of the ECHR of Strasbourg, due to the lack in the European Convention of Human Rights of an equivalent of the right to the protection of health and the right to personal inviolability, was for a long time widely interpreted not only as the entitlement to autonomy of information in the scope of human privacy and intimacy, but also as the integrity of physical and psychological human rights, which involves a positive obligation of the state to defend individuals against unlawful acts of violence on the part of third parties</span></span><a name="_ftnref1" id="_ftnref1"></a><a href="#_ftn1"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[1]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">. In the present case, it was indisputable that the applicants were recipients of comments wishing them death, and the prosecutor refused to take any remedial steps. The state has failed to fulfil the obligation to defend the applicants from the threat of acts of violence.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">2. However, the justification of the decision of the Court must be assessed critically. The complaint deserved to be taken into account because Lithuania refused the legal protection of two men against clear threats of violence, who should be protected in the same way as all other citizens and not because – as it follows from justification of the ruling – that their “mental well-being” has suffered in connection with being homosexual. It is clear that the public debate on socially important topics involves the disturbance of the mental well-being of some of the people, usually without presenting any risks to their life and health. This is, however, not a reason to prohibit such debates. On the contrary, the freedom of expression, enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, should as a rule also protect expressions causing emotional discomfort to adversaries.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">3. It should be stressed that beyond any doubt, expressions inciting violence against any person do not benefit from protection of the right under the freedom of expression and should be subject to strict sanctions. Expressions inciting violence, containing punishable threats, promoting totalitarian ideologies were always – and rightly – recognised in the case law of the Court in Strasbourg as an abuse of the right to freedom of expression</span></span><a name="_ftnref2" id="_ftnref2"></a><a href="#_ftn2"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[2]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">. Sometimes, such statements are referred to as so-called hate speech.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">4. Hate speech is not a legal concept, but is a product of international juridical science and case law. In international law, the concept of hatred exists, which appeared for the first time in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 (ICCPR). The prohibition of propaganda for war was formulated in Article 20 of the ICCPR (paragraph 1), as well as the prohibition of any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (paragraph 2). The purpose of introducing legal solutions, which would sanction extreme and hateful attitudes towards specific social groups, was to prevent the repetition of crimes led by German Nazism, whose ideological foundation was based, inter alia, on hatred towards other national, racial and ethnic groups</span></span><a name="_ftnref3" id="_ftnref3"></a><a href="#_ftn3"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[3]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">. The second prohibition was introduced at the initiative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which, in its first proposal submitted in 1947, called for the criminalisation of any act “promoting any hostility, hatred or contempt” and all acts of “privilege or discrimination” of a national, racial or religious character</span></span><a name="_ftnref4" id="_ftnref4"></a><a href="#_ftn4"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[4]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">. In the course of the debate, a representative of Great Britain pointed out that this proposal does not provide for the protection of an individual against discrimination based on political views. In response to this allegation, a representative of the USSR replied that proclaiming “political views supporting racial or national hatred and actions resulting from this hatred” should be deprived of legal protection. When a representative of Chile asked whether this means that the Soviet Union advocates the persecution of an individual because of their political views, the representative of the USSR refused to reply, indicating that this question is not related to the subject of discussion. The first proposition to introduce a prohibition of the spread of hatred was then rejected</span></span><a name="_ftnref5" id="_ftnref5"></a><a href="#_ftn5"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[5]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">. The discussion over the postulate of the USSR was revisited in the subsequent years thanks to the countries cooperating with the Soviets, which were making analogous proposals. In the 1950s, the majority of countries participating in the work on the draft of the Pact rejected the successive versions of the prohibition of incitement to hatred, because of the ambiguity of this term and a concern that it will be used to restrict freedom of expression</span></span><a name="_ftnref6" id="_ftnref6"></a><a href="#_ftn6"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[6]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">. In 1961, a representative of the United States explained that such a solution “opens the door to abuses”, and its entry into force “could be used by the governments of totalitarian countries to impose restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of the press.” In fact, “any criticism addressed to public or religious authorities can easily be treated as an “incitement to hatred”</span></span><a name="_ftnref7" id="_ftnref7"></a><a href="#_ftn7"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[7]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">. Similar doubts were shared e.g. by a representative of Japan, indicating the difficulty to define the concept of hatred: “each government could refer to such provisions [formulating a prohibition of incitement to hatred] to justify authoritarian control over all forms of expression, and suppress any unfavourable views, under the pretext of the fight against any incitement to hatred and violence<a name="_ftnref8" id="_ftnref8">”</a></span></span><a href="#_ftn8"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[8]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Despite these doubts, an entry to art. 20(2) of the Pact was finally passed, which prohibited “encouraging in any way national, racial or religious hatred, which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or rape”, without imposing on the countries an obligation to penalise the so-called hate speech. The prohibition of incitement to hatred was adopted by a majority of 50 to 18 votes, mainly with the support of the Soviet bloc countries and the countries of an authoritarian regime (including, among others, the Soviet Union, Albania, Hungary, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates), with the opposition of democratic countries of the western block (including, among others, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands)</span></span><a name="_ftnref9" id="_ftnref9"></a><a href="#_ftn9"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[9]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">. Taking into account the historical context of the emergence of Article 20(2) of the ICCPR, the concept of a prohibition of incitement to hatred of a race, national or religious character must be interpreted strictly as actions having as an objective to provoke violence in a closer or further perspective. Therefore, the concept of so-called hate speech should be interpreted more conservatively, as its prohibition was not expressed in any common international legal act. The authors of the Pact have rightly noticed threats in too broad a meaning of “hate” to the fundamental values in Democratic reality, which is the freedom of expression.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">5. According to a classic definition, so-called hate speech is public statements encouraging violence against persons or groups of persons due to a specific personal feature, such as race, religion, or gender</span></span><a name="_ftnref10" id="_ftnref10"></a><a href="#_ftn10"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[10]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">. In recent years, this concept has gradually expanded - in many countries and also in the case law of international institutions (such as the Secretary General of the United Nations</span></span><a name="_ftnref11" id="_ftnref11"></a><a href="#_ftn11"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[11]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">, the European Parliament</span></span><a name="_ftnref12" id="_ftnref12"></a><a href="#_ftn12"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[12]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe</span></span><a name="_ftnref13" id="_ftnref13"></a><a href="#_ftn13"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[13]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">, and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance), hate speech is not only an expression inciting violence and containing punishable threats, but any kind of expression that could cause psychological discomfort of a person criticised for reasons of a specific personal feature - e.g. sexual orientation. At the same time, it is more and more often postulated to penalise expressions constituting hate speech in a broad sense. The European Court of Human Rights in the case of Beizaras and Levickas headed in a similar direction.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">6. It is one thing to penalise statements posing a threat to the life and health of other persons, while it is quite another to make people criminally liable for statements criticising the lifestyle of others. In the first case, the criminal law protects the highest values (the right to life and the right to respect for physical integrity), in the second case, it protects the values situated lower in the hierarchy of legal interests: the good name, privacy, and well-being of persons being subject to criticism.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">7. The extension of the definition of hate speech and the progressive range of criminal penalties results in a severe limitation of freedom of expression, which – according to the golden rule expressed in the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the famous case of Handyside, cited also in the contemporary <a name="_ftnref14" id="_ftnref14">case law</a></span></span><a href="#_ftn14"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[14]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"> – includes not only the right to present information and express views that are being received favourably, considered as inoffensive and neutral, but also the right to expression that is offensive, outrages or introduces anxiety in a state or in a part of society.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">8. In its essence, freedom of expression also entails criticising behaviours of specific social groups, which include people sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. It should be noted that there is an important difference between criticising someone's belonging to a particular race, nation, or gender and someone's sexual preferences (so-called sexual orientation). Insofar as belonging to a particular race, nation, or gender is completely independent of human will, sexual preferences are a matter of free choice, which is often said by homosexual people</span></span><a name="_ftnref15" id="_ftnref15"></a><a href="#_ftn15"><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#0563c1">[15]</span></span></span></sup></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">. If a given man prefers sexual contacts with people of the same sex and gladly manifests this preference to the public (e.g. on Facebook), he should realise that he will face the criticism of people who consider this type of behaviour to be immoral. The freedom of expression in this case involves religious freedom, since the three great monotheistic religions practised by the majority of the world population – Christianity, Judaism and Islam – recognise homosexual behaviour as morally ignoble. We may of course not agree with such beliefs, but we cannot strictly prohibit their proclamation. As LGBT persons have the right to present homosexuality as a completely natural tendency deserving approval and respect, Christians, Jews, Muslims and others should also have the possibility to recognise homosexuality as a deviation, and homosexual behaviours as immoral. Of course, the freedom to criticise unconventional sexual preferences is not unlimited – at the moment, when the criticism begins to be accompanied by punishable threats or incitement to violence against LGBT persons, the state should present a strong response in the form of penal sanction. This applies to all social groups, not only LGBT – each human should be protected by the state against unlawful acts of violence or acts inciting violence against him or her.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">9. Therefore, the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania deserves to be criticised because it uses an extreme case of making punishable threats addressed to other people as a pretext to formulate a postulate of prosecuting by the state of all critical expressions toward homosexual lifestyle, causing psychological discomfort of LGBT people.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Author: Paweł M. Łukaszewski</span></span></span></span></p> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/analyses_block/field--node--body--analiza-prawna.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-zdjecie2--analiza-prawna.html.twig * field--node--field-zdjecie2.html.twig * field--node--analiza-prawna.html.twig * field--field-zdjecie2.html.twig * field--image.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/analyses_block/field--node--field-zdjecie2--analiza-prawna.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_formatter' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * image-formatter--node--analiza-prawna--field-zdjecie2.html.twig x image-formatter.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image_style' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'image' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/artykul_full/public/2020-02/AdobeStock_51362090.jpeg?itok=0rGYgeaQ" width="250" height="125" alt="" typeof="foaf:Image" /> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-style.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/themes/stable/templates/field/image-formatter.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/analyses_block/field--node--field-zdjecie2--analiza-prawna.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: x field--node--field-kategoria--analiza-prawna.html.twig * field--node--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--node--analiza-prawna.html.twig * field--field-kategoria.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/analyses_block/field--node--field-kategoria--analiza-prawna.html.twig' --> Civil liberties <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/analyses_block/field--node--field-kategoria--analiza-prawna.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--field-tagi--analiza-prawna.html.twig x field--node--field-tagi.html.twig * field--node--analiza-prawna.html.twig * field--field-tagi.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> <hr> <ul class="tags_list"> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/lithuania" hreflang="pl">lithuania</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/ordo-iuris" hreflang="pl">Ordo Iuris</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/tribunal" hreflang="pl">Tribunal</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/human-rights" hreflang="pl">human rights</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/lgbt" hreflang="pl">LGBT</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/freedom-speech" hreflang="pl">freedom of speech</a></li> <li class="label label-ordo2"><a href="/hate-speech" hreflang="pl">hate speech</a></li> </ul> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/custom/ordoiuris/templates/page_node/field--node--field-tagi.html.twig' --> Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:43:27 +0000 filip.bator 1040 at https://en.ordoiuris.pl