International Courts
Werner Mangold v. Rudiger Helm, (November 22, 2005)
European Court of Justice
Keywords: Other
Brief Summary: Contracts case involving age discrimination.
CEDAW: CEDAW was mentioned as an example of one of several international agreements that mandate equality before the law.
Hellmut Marschall v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, (May 15, 1997)
Court of Justice of the European Communities
Keywords: Discrimination-Gender/Sex, Employment; Other
Brief Summary: Discrimination action challenging a national law which mandated that women must be given priority over an equally qualified male candidates in official sectors where fewer women than men occupy high grade posts.
CEDAW: Several nations used CEDAW in order to support the action, specifically Article 4(1) which provdies for "special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women." The court concurred.
Full Text
Webb v. Emp Air Cargo, (July 14, 1994)
Court of Justice of the European Communities
Keywords: Discrimination-Gender/Sex, Employment; Other
Brief Summary:Applicant was hired by the defendant corporation to replace a pregnant employee during her pregnancy leave. Applicant later learned that she, herself, was also pregnant; the Corporation then terminated her employment.
CEDAW: Applicant relies on CEDAW although the court never directly addresses how the Convention ought to be read in such an action.
Full Text
Unal Tekeli v. Turkey, (November 16, 2004)
European Court of Human Rights
Keywords: Discrimination-Gender/Sex; Other
Brief Summary: Applicant, a lawyer, petitioned the Karpiyaka Court of First Instance for permission to use only her maiden name (as she was professionally known by her maiden name, even after her marriage). She was denied and thereafter applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the refusal to allow her to bear only her maiden name infered with her right to protection of her private life and discriminated against her on the basis of gender (as married men could continue to bear their own family name).
CEDAW: CEDAW is referred to as affirming "women's rights regarding the choice of family name and the possibility of keeping their own name if they so desire."
EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Kingdom of Norway, (January 24, 2003)
The EFTA Court
Keywords: Discrimination-Gender/Sex, Employment; Other
Brief Summary: Case concerned a challenge to the Norwegian Universities Act 1995 which allowed academic positions to be earmarked for women. The EFTA Surveillance Authority brought infringement proceedings against Norway alleging that the Act contravened the EC Equal Treatment Directive in that it discriminated against men on the grounds of sex.
CEDAW: In answer to the proceedings, Norway claimed that the under-representation of women in higher academic positions sustained a need for affirmative action measures such as are called for under Article 4(1) of CEDAW. The court disagreed, noting that the Directive was rendered after CEDAW came into force and the affirmative action measures in CEDAW are "clearly permissive rather than mandatory. Therefore they cannot be relied on for derogations from obligation under EEA law."
Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago, (March 11, 2005)
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Keywords:
Brief Summary:
CEDAW:
Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, (February 22, 2001)
ICTY
Keywords: Sexual Violence
Brief Summary: The Indictment charges both Dragoljub Kunarac and Radomir Kovac with enslavement as a crime against humanity under Article 5(c) of the Statute. The Tribunal had to determine what constitutes "enslavement" as a crime against humanity as it relates solely to the treatment of women and children and certain allegations of forced or compulsory labor or service.
CEDAW: The Tribunal took into consideration the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women ("CEDAW"), which includes the obligation that states parties suppress "all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women" as well as the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child also specifically forbids trafficking in children. Unlike the 1949 Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, the afore-mentioned treaties do not require a link between trafficking and prostitution.