Case law Flashcards

1
Q

Symes v Canada

A

Wasn’t allowed to deduct childcare expenses from income

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Obst v Germany

A

Religious hiring requirements: men dismissed from public relations because of committing adultery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

CJEU case Germany 2018

A

religious hiring: job that entailed research but required membership of church. the court talked about effective judicial review and proportionality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Plessy v Ferguson

A

Louisiana Act case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Fernandez v Spain

A

Religious hiring: priest who has against celibacy and was dismissed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Brown v Board of Education

A

Racism: black kids want to access the same public education

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Bougnaoui ADDH v Micropole

A

right to conduct business: veiled woman fired after customer complaining. court talked about aim and proportionality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Samira Achbita v Secure Solutions

A

freedom to conduct business: veiled woman fired because of internal policy to not express religious beliefs in workplace

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Loving v Virginia

A

Racism: end of anti-miscegenation law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

South Africa v Hugo

A

Social constructionism: Nelson Mandela pardoned women with kids under 12, not men

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Yaker v France

A

Intersectionality and wearing religious clothing: two veiled women arrested and not indirect discrimination because of aim and proportionality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Cakeshop v Colorado

A

Accomodation: bakery refused to do cake for gay wedding. they were against the message not the customer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Sahin v Turkey

A

Wearing religious clothing: girl not allowed to enter university because of new turban ban. she relied on articles 9, 14, 10 and 8. the decision was upheld

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Parris v Dublin

A

Intersectionality: man could only get benefits if he was married before 65, but same-sex marriage was illegal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Konstantin v Russia

A

Stereotypes: soldier asked for long-term parental leave but these were only for women

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Ladele v London

A

Accomodation: woman who was registrar refused to enter same-sex marriage. not upheld

17
Q

Dudgeon v UK

A

discrimination gender: criminalisation of same-sex relationships was against article 8

18
Q

Abdulaziz v UK

A

Stereotypes and immigrants: women found it harder to get authorisation to enter the UK because they were seen as dependent and non-working

19
Q

Hobby Lobby v Burwell

A

religious freedom of corporations

20
Q

Eweida v UK

A

Religious signs: a woman not allowed to wear small cross in British airways but it was found to be discriminatory

21
Q

Kokkinakis v Greece

A

Freedom of religion basic for democracy

22
Q

X, Y, Z v UK

A

Trans fatherhood: trans man was not recognised as man after IVF with wife because no biological link

23
Q

Dakir v Belgium

A

wearing religious clothing: veiled woman applied to conseil d’état to annul ban. basic norms of society

24
Q

Dubois v France

A

Marriage and adoption: a woman wanted to adopt her girlfriend’s kid and wasn’t allowed because they were not married

25
Q

Goodwin v UK

A

discrimination gender: man denied sex change + marrying man. in the end he was allowed (because it would end up man and woman)

26
Q

Odièvre v France

A

right to know one’s origin: state must preserve secrecy in non-irreversible manner in accouchement sous x

27
Q

Shalk v Austria

A

same-sex marriage and adoption intersectionality issue

28
Q

H v Finland

A

discrimination gender: man married woman and then wanted to change to woman. was not allowed because same-sex marriage not legal

29
Q

Menesson v France

A

Surrogacy: american birth certificates after surrogacy not accepted in France. man recognised as dad but woman took years to be able to adopt

30
Q

Paradiso v Italy

A

no right to become a parent

31
Q

Montpellier case

A

Lesbian mums: trans woman and woman had a baby and she was not allowed the label of mother. was in 2018, still hard