Equality

Question 1

Stec v UK

Answer 1

About social welfare benefits and different pension ages
No ECHR right to benefits
But welfare benefits are a kind of property right
So ECHR finds that discrimination in welfare benefits is discrimination re: ECHR right to property
Illustration of how STR’s broad reading of Art14 gives it broad effect

UK wins tho bc they were in transitional period of equalizing the ages

Question 2

R (Rotherham) v SSBIS

Answer 2

There is a CL principle of equal treatment
But it’s scop is uncertain
North England complaining about receiving less resources than devolved regions despite having comparative poverty
Gvt relied on objective justification

Question 3

East Frican Asians Case (1981)

Answer 3

Blatant racism in UK shutting down entry rights of Asians expeleed from Uganda and KEny = Art 3 violation

Question 4

Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v UK

Answer 4

More difficult to bring husbands than wives into country from Asian subcontinent (bc they though men would be more trouble)
Art 14: Art 8 – private and family life

Question 5

Thlimmenos v Greece (2000)

Answer 5

Jehovah’s witness refuses military service, imprisoned

ECHR says should have made exception

Question 6

Sidabaras and Dziautas v Lithuania (2004)

Answer 6

Controversially wide ambit of Art 8 ECHR
Former KGB precluded from various posts
nothing about employment in ECHR
But here it was considered an Art8 violation
Some say this is too wide an interpretation of Art 8, and also makes ambit requirement irrelevant

Question 7

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza

Answer 7

Difficulty of having comparator when showing diifference of treatment in similarly situated persons
Survivor of long term homo couple discrim against
LL says no similarly situated to hetero couple, they are different social groups and homo couples are different to heteroo couples
Shows how there is often a difficult value judgment
Court will often link this to objective justification, effectively assume stage 2 is satisfied and jump straight to stage 4

Question 8

DH v Czech Republic

Answer 8

Application of Art 14 analysis to the alleged segregation of Roma children within the Czech school system.
Article 2 Protocol 1 Right to education

Question 9

R v SS Home Department, ex p Carson v Reynolds

Answer 9

Different pension payments for pensioners overseas depending on where you are.
Hoffman: suspect and non-suspect grounds
suspect = stuff like gender, race etc. Things where discrimination offends our notion of equal respect. The courts will carefully examine reasoning in this category
Non-suspect = any other personal characteristic. Discrimnation merely requires some rational justification, matter for the elected branches, as relates more to the general public interest.

Question 10

R (on the application of RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008]

Answer 10

Determining personal characteristic under Art14
Wide interpretation should be taken of “or other status” and should not be too closely limited by the grounds which are specifically prohibited in the article
Homelessness was personal characteristic
Generally, if you are being identified as a kind of persone.g. homeless, this can be a stuas, but something incidental, e.g. amount of money in your bank account, this will not be

Question 11

Mangold (2005)

Answer 11

Recognised general principle of equality under EU law

Now reflected in Charter of Fundamental Rights

Question 12

Article 2 of Directive 2000/43/EC;
Art. 2 of Directive 2000/78/EC;
Art. 2 of Directive 2006/54/EC

Answer 12

All are essentially identical in how they define discrimination:
Behaviour that takes the form of ‘less favourable treatment’ is prohibited and cannot be shown to be objectively justified.

Question 13

Art. 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC

Answer 13

Age discrimination is different, as direct age discrimination can (uniquely) be shown to be objectively justified. Note also the existence of the ‘genuine occupational requirement’ defence (see Article 4 of the EU Directives).]

Question 14

CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Nikolova

Answer 14

Discrimination on the grounds of perception (‘perceived’ gender or ‘perceived ethnic group membership) or discrimination on the grounds of association with a person having a protected characteristic is also prohibited, as confirmed by the CJEU

Question 15

R v Birmingham CC ex parte EOC [1989]

Answer 15

Direct Discrimination lacks justification defence
Birmingham grammar schools used to have gender quotas
60% boys 40% girls
When council took over they carried on bc it was traditional and the parents liked it
So they didn’t actually change anything and there were reasons
But Court said it doesn’t matter if you have reasoning bc its direct discrimination – you cant even raise these arguments

Question 16

R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport [2005]

Answer 16

Used to screen passengers travelling from Prague to UK
Screening for Roma coming in from Cech Republic, coming in stealing jobs and relying on welfare
So would single out dark-skinned Czechs
No legislation powers
Court said there is no lawful authority that over-rides prohibition on DD so struck down
Gvt said we have justification, they’re absuign the system
Court said doesn’t matter, its direct discrimination

Question 17

R (Watkins-Singh) v Aberdare Girls’ High School [2008]

Answer 17

Indirect discrimination
Not objectively justified: aims o preventing flashy jewelery, kids demarcating themselves etc don’t apply to kara
Also failed positive equality duty, ar no point considered situation in light of that duty
Could have litigated through Art 14 and 9, decided to use legislative framework instead bc it was more clear
Contrast Azmi v Kirklees where ban on face-vels was very clearly justified

Question 18

Religious attire cases complicated in ECHR

Answer 18

Some countries eg France have strong focus on secularism in school
Leyla Sahin v Turky
Turkey banned headscarves in university, upheld in ECHR. Turkey very specifically invoked secular considerations. ECHR said this was a margin of appreciation issue. Very controversial. ECHR often accused of insufficiently protecting religious rights

Question 19

Moore v SSCLG (2015)

Answer 19

SSCLG pulling in appeals by travelers
No need to use EU law as there was no legislation they needed to attack.
Argued both direct and indirect discrimination. Court said we don’t have clear evidence of intention, and in direct v indirect we only focus on form of requirement, which was here apparently neutral.
SSCLG argued comparison groups should be non-ethnic travelers. Court said no, should be all other people making applications in general. Would be an artificial exercise to compare w other nomadic groups, bc there aren’t really any
No objective justification. Can’t say the justification is that the group is controversial. A discriminatory reason cannot be used as objective justification

Question 20

R (Carmichael) v SSWP

Answer 20

Used HRA
ECHR can compel you to make an exception
Disabled: should have provided the extra room. Gvt provided supplementayr funds for the adversely affected, but this wouldn’t be enough
Battered women: no clear need for the room, supplementary funds would be fine

Question 21

Steinfeld v SS Education [2016]

Answer 21

Hetero civil partnerships case
Said that yes there probably is a breach. Cited Olianari v Italy, though its not clear that the case applies, probably more about needing to better provide for unmarried couples
But didn’t grant DOI bc gvt is considering it
Bad idea not to grant DOI bc gvt is considering something, they are always considering everything
Also, “gvt is considering it” really means gvt is burying it and hoping it goes away