Corte Europea dei Diritti dell'Uomo

Il divieto di indossare il velo imposto a una dipendente del servizio
pubblico ospedaliero rappresenta una restrizione del diritto di
libertà religiosa garantito dall'art. 9 della CEDU;
restrizione che risulta tuttavia "necessaria", in una
società democratica, alla "protezione dei diritti e delle
libertà altrui". La limitazione della libertà
di manifestare la propria fede religiosa sul luogo di lavoro mediante
uno specifico abbigliamento costituisce, infatti, una misura
"proporzionata" allo scopo di tutelare il principio di
laicità dello Stato e di assicurare l'adempimento
dell'obbligo di neutralità dei servizi pubblici.

The case concerned an action to recover possession of property which
had been confiscated from the Parish when the communist regime
was established in 1948. Prior to 1948 the Greek-Catholic
parishes had possessed a range of properties, lands and
buildings. The Uniate denomination was dissolved in 1948 and the
property of the Greek-Catholic Church was transferred to the
State, apart from parish property, which was transferred to the
Orthodox Church. The Uniate denomination was officially
recognised after the fall of the communist regime in December
1989. As regards the legal situation of the former property of the
Uniate parishes, a section of the Legislative Decree laid down
that it should be adjudicated by joint commissions
of representatives of the clergy of both denominations, and that
in reaching their decisions the commissions should take account
of “the wishes of the adherents of the communities to whom
the properties belong”. In the event of disagreement
between the clerical representatives, the party interested in
taking legal action could bring proceedings under ordinary domestic
law. Between 1998 and 2002 several unproductive meetings were
held by representatives of the Siseşti Parish Eastern-Rite
Catholic Church and Orthodox Church representatives. On 24 February
2004 the applicant’s action was initially dismissed under a
final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice on the ground that
the commission had not yet assessed the legal situation of the
property in issue and that, moreover, part of that property came
under special legislation. In April 2005 the applicant parish
lodged a fresh claim with the Regional Court to recover possession of
the property, over which it claimed rightful ownership. That
Court dismissed that claim. The Court of Appeal referred the case
back. The court adjourned its examination of the case from 2 June 2008
to 27 February 2009 on the ground that an objection as regards
constitutionality had been transmitted to the Constitutional
Court. On 21 September 2011 the court ordered the restitution of the
church and the land at issue. The appeals lodged by both parties
were dismissed. By judgment of 21 November 2012 the High Court
upheld the decisions given. Relying in particular on Article 6
§ 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) the
applicant notably complained about the length of the proceedings
concerning their action to recover possession of their places of
worship. [Press Release]

Dans son arrêt de Grande Chambre, rendu ce jour dans
l’affaire Parrillo c. Italie (requête no 46470/11), la
Cour européenne des droits de l’homme dit, par seize voix
contre une, qu’il y a eu : Non-violation de l’article 8
(droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale) de la
Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.
L’affaire concernait l’interdiction opposée
à Mme Parrillo par la loi italienne n° 40/2004 de faire don
d’embryons issus d’une fécondation in vitro et non
destinés à une grossesse, afin d’aider la
recherche scientifique. Saisie pour la première fois de cette
question, la Cour a dit que l’article 8 trouvait à
s’appliquer dans cette affaire sous son volet « vie
privée », les embryons en cause renfermant le patrimoine
génétique de Mme Parrillo et représentant donc
une partie constitutive de son identité. La Cour a
d’emblée estimé que l’Italie devait
bénéficier sur cette question délicate
d’une ample marge d’appréciation, ce que confirment
l’absence de consensus européen et les textes
internationaux à ce sujet. La Cour a ensuite relevé que
l’élaboration de la loi n° 40/2004 avait donné
lieu à un important débat et que le législateur
italien avait tenu compte de l’intérêt de
l’État à protéger l’embryon, comme de
celui des individus à exercer leur droit à
l’autodétermination. La Cour a précisé
qu’il n’était pas nécessaire de se pencher
dans cette affaire sur la question, délicate et
controversée, du début de la vie humaine,
l’article 2 (droit à la vie) n’étant pas
invoqué. Notant enfin que rien n’attestait de la
volonté du compagnon décédé de Mme
Parrillo de donner les embryons à des fins de recherche
scientifique, la Cour a conclu que l’interdiction en cause
était « nécessaire dans une société
démocratique ». [Fonte: Communiqué du press –
www.echr.coe.int]

In the case of Oliari and Others v. Italy (application no. 18766/11
and 36030/11) the European Court of Human Rights held,
unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 8 (right
to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention
on Human Rights. The case concerned the complaint by three
homosexual couples that under Italian legislation they do not
have the possibility to get married or enter into any other type of
civil union. The Court considered that the legal protection
currently available to same-sex couples in Italy – as was
shown by the applicants’ situation – did not only fail to
provide for the core needs relevant to a couple in a stable
committed relationship, but it was also not sufficiently reliable. A
civil union or registered partnership would be the most
appropriate way for same-sex couples like the applicants to have
their relationship legally recognised. The Court pointed out, in
particular, that there was a trend among Council of Europe member
States towards legal recognition of same-sex couples –
24 out of the 47 member States having legislated in favour of
such recognition – and that the Italian Constitutional
Court had repeatedly called for such protection and recognition.
Furthermore, according to recent surveys, a majority of the Italian
population supported legal recognition of homosexual couples.
[Press Release – European Court of Human Rights]

The case concerned the placement in social-service care of a
nine-month-old child who had been born in Russia following a
gestational surrogacy contract entered into by a couple; it
subsequently transpired that they had no biological relationship
with the child. The Court found in particular that the
public-policy considerations underlying Italian
authorities’ decisions – finding that the applicants
had attempted to circumvent the prohibition in Italy on
using surrogacy arrangements and the rules governing
international adoption – could not take precedence over the
best interests of the child, in spite of the absence of any biological
relationship and the short period during which the applicants had
cared for him. Reiterating that the removal of a child from the
family setting was an extreme measure that could be justified only in
the event of immediate danger to that child, the Court considered
that, in the present case, the conditions justifying a removal
had not been met.  [Press Release]

The applicants, ten founding members of the Church of Scientology
Mission of St. Petersburg, complained about the refusal of Russian
authorities to register their movement as a legal entity. The Court
ruled that there had been a violation of Article 9 in light of Article
11.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in favor of
Jehovah’s Witnesses and their right to worship without unlawful
interference from the Russian authorities. In its unanimous judgment,
the Court found that Russia violated Articles 5 (right to liberty and
security) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) of the
European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) when police
overwhelmed a religious service with an illegal raid on the night of
April 12, 2006.

In OLIR.it: Press release issued by the Registrar of the Court