Amicus Work: Europe
Highlights of amicus briefs and third-party interventions submitted by the Center on cases in Europe.
Europe
Application by Sarah Jane Eware for Judicial Review (Reference No: 2018/60061/01)
High Court of Northern Ireland (2019)
Issue: Prohibition and criminalization of abortion.
Center’s position: The prohibition and criminalization of abortion in Northern Ireland violated the right to privacy under national and European human rights law.
Sarah Ewart claimed that her right to private life, as enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and national implementing legislation, was violated when she was prohibited from accessing abortion care in Northern Ireland following a diagnosis of fatal fetal impairment during her pregnancy. On 3 October 2019, the Northern Irish High Court upheld her claims and ruled that Northern Ireland’s highly restrictive abortion law contravened the European Convention and relevant national legislation.
Judicial Review of the Law on Termination of Pregnancy in Northern Ireland (UKSC 2017/0131)
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2017)
Issue: Prohibition and criminalization of abortion.
Center’s position: The prohibition and criminalization of abortion in Northern Ireland violated the right to privacy under national and European human rights law.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission initiated legal proceedings seeking a declaration that the law on abortion in force at the time in Northern Ireland was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. On 7 June 2018, a majority of the UK Supreme Court recognized that, by prohibiting abortion in situations of rape, incest and fatal fetal impairment, Northern Irish law contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Court also held that the Commission did not have legal standing to bring the relevant claims and for this the Court considered itself unable to issue a declaration of incompatibility. The Court underlined that the restrictive nature of Northern Ireland’s abortion law is untenable and called on lawmakers to undertake swift and radical reform as soon as possible.
In the Matter of the Constitutionality of Article 7(1)(e) of Law 87/2020
Constitutional Court of Romania (2020)
Issue: Constitutionality of legal provisions regarding education on gender and gender identity.
Center’s position: The Center joined ILGA-Europe and four other European NGOs in arguing that Romania is obliged under international human rights law to protect and respect the rights of trans and gender diverse people and prevent discrimination on the grounds of gender identity in the field of education.
Romania’s Constitutional Court was called upon by the country’s President to determine the constitutionality of a new law which would have prohibited educational institutions from teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity in accordance with international human rights law. On 16 December 2020, the Constitutional Court found the provision unconstitutional.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (2017)
Issue: Constitutionality of Croatia’s law on abortion.
Center’s position: International human rights law, comparative European law and international public health and clinical standards support women’s right to access abortion care, including the legality of abortion on request
The Croatian Constitutional Court was called on to review the constitutionality of the Act on Health Measures for the Realization of the Right to Freely Decide on the Childbirth (Act Official Gazette No. 18/78). On 20 March 2017, the Constitutional Court ruled that by allowing access to abortion, including on request in early stages of pregnancy, the law gave effect to women’s constitutional rights.
Review of the Constitutionality of the Act No. 73/1986 Coll. on Induced Abortion (PL ÚS/12.01)
Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic (2007)
Issue: Constitutionality of Slovakia’s abortion law.
Center’s position: The Center and the International Women’s Human Rights Law Clinic at the City University of New York School of Law, in cooperation with Pro Choice Slovakia and the Slovak Family Planning Association, explained that international and European human rights law do not recognize the right to life before birth.
On 4 December 2007, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the Slovak Abortion Act, which allows abortion on request during first 12 weeks of pregnancy, is in compliance with the Slovak Constitution.
B.B. v. Poland (App. No. 67171/17)
European Court of Human Rights (2020)
Issue: Human rights violations as a result of denial of access to legal abortion care in Poland.
Center’s position: Denial of access to abortion can give rise to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and can violate the right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention
The applicant in the case was prevented from accessing abortion care after receiving a diagnosis of a fatal fetal impairment. She claims a breach of her rights under Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case is pending.
Charron and Merle-Montet v. France (App. No. 22612/15)
European Court of Human Rights (2017)
Issue: Access to in vitro fertilization without discrimination based on sex, marital status and sexual orientation.
Center’s position: International and comparative human rights standards and jurisprudence related to women’s access to assisted reproductive technologies recognize that restrictions on access to IVF based on marital or relationship status engage women’s rights to private and family life and have a disproportionate impact on women in general, and on single women and lesbian couples, in contravention of the international prohibition of discrimination against women on grounds of sex, marital status and sexual orientation.
The case concerned French legal rules which do not allow single women or lesbian couples to access medically assisted reproduction. On 8 February 2018, the European Court of Human Rights found the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
European Committee of Social Rights (2013)
Issue: Regulation of refusals of care by medical professionals to provide reproductive health care.
Center’s position: The Center and the Swedish Association for Sexuality Education (RFSU) argued that international human rights law and standards do not require that medical professionals be allowed to refuse to provide reproductive health care, including abortion care.
The Federation of Catholic Families in Europe (FAFCE) submitted a collective complaint under the European Social Charter claiming that Sweden’s failure to establish a legal and policy framework governing refusals of care by medical practitioners for personal or religious reasons violated medical providers and medical students rights to protection of health and freedom from discrimination. On 17 March 2015, the Committee ruled against FAFCE and held that the Charter does not grant a right to refuse to provide reproductive health care, including abortion care, and that Swedish law did not violate the Charter.
Gauer and Others v. France (App. No. 61521/08)
European Court of Human Rights (2011)
Issue: Forced sterilization of women with disabilities.
Center’s position: The Center, together with the European Disability Forum, the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights (INTERIGHTS), the International Disability Alliance and the Mental Disability Advocacy Center, argued that the sterilization of women with disabilities without their free and informed consent is a violation of international human rights law.
The case was brought by and on behalf of women with disabilities in France who were forcibly sterilized and who claimed that this violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights found the application inadmissible for failure to submit the application within the prescribed deadline.
A, B and C v. Ireland (App. No. 25579/05)
European Court of Human Rights (2008)
Issue: Prohibition on abortion and failure to establish an effective procedure for access to legal abortion.
Center’s position: The Center, together with the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, argued that Ireland’s law on abortion was inconsistent with international human rights and European comparative law as it did not permit abortion to safeguard a woman’s physical and mental health.
Three women who had to travel outside of Ireland to obtain safe and legal abortion care challenged Ireland’s prohibition on abortion and the absence of effective procedures by which women could access legal abortion care when their lives were at risk. On 16 December 2010, the European Court of Human Rights held that Ireland’s failure to adopt legislation and establish an effective and accessible procedure for women whose lives were at risk to access lawful abortions violated the right to respect for private life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Tysiąc v. Poland (App. No. 5410/03)
European Court of Human Rights (2005)
Issue: Denial of access to legal abortion violates human rights standards.
Center’s position: When national law provides for an entitlement to abortion care, the state is obliged under human rights law to ensure that women can exercise this right and access care in practice.
A visually impaired Polish woman was denied a legal abortion even though medical diagnoses confirmed that continuing her pregnancy could severely impact her vision, thereby constituting a risk to her health. On 20 March 2007, the European Court of Human Rights held that Poland had violated Article 8 on the right to respect for private life as a result of its failure to establish an effective procedure through which the applicant could have enforced her entitlements under national law to a legal abortion.
J.D. et al. v. the Czech Republic (Communication No. 102/2016)
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2017)
Issue: Obligation to provide effective remedies and reparations to Roma women survivors of forced and coercive sterilization
Center’s position: Discriminatory and systematic practices of forced and coercive sterilization contravene the international prohibition of gender-based violence and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and constitute a gross violation of international human rights law. States have obligations under CEDAW and general international human rights law to provide effective remedies and redress to Roma women who have survived forced and coercive sterilization.
Six Roma women complained that they had been forcibly sterilized without their informed consent and that this resulted in ongoing breaches of their human rights and that they had been denied access to an effective remedy. On 16 July 2019, the CEDAW Committee found the communication inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
A.S. v. Hungary (Communication No. 4/2004)
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2005)
Issue: Forced sterilization of Roma women.
Center’s position: International human rights law and medical standards on informed consent and the right to information are critical components of any sterilization procedure and it is a violation of international human rights when sterilization is performed without full and informed consent.
The case was brought by a Roma woman who was forcibly sterilized without her informed consent. On 29 August 2006, the CEDAW Committee found that Hungary had failed to protect her rights under the CEDAW Convention and that its failure to provide reproductive health information and to ensure that women’s full and informed consent was obtained prior to sterilization violated the Convention.
