Dag 3 Internasjonale menneskerettigheter

1. Dag 3 Internasjonale menneskerettigheter Stipediat Tone Wærstad t.l.warstad@jus.uio.no

2. Mutatis Mutandis: • latin: etter at det som bør forandres er forandret / med tilbørlige endringer. • (juridisk leksikon, kunnskapsforlaget 1987) • "His cat" and "His dog" should be changed to "Her cat" and "Her dog", mutatis mutandis for pony, sheep and cow. [i.e. "His pony" becomes "Her pony," and so on.] • What we said about oil goes mutatis mutandis for natural gas. • (eksempler fra wikipedia.org) • Betegner analoge tilfeller?

3. Strand, Vibeke Blaker: • ”Forholdet mellom den norske grunnlovens menneskerettigheter, de internasjonale menneskerettighetskonvensjonene og ordinær lovgivning” • Retfærd årgang 30, 2007, nr. 4/119

4. EMK art 14 • Art 14.Forbud mot diskriminering,, •        Utøvelsen av de rettigheter og friheter som er fastlagt i denne konvensjon skal bli sikret uten diskriminering på noe grunnlag slik som kjønn, rase, farge, språk, religion, politisk eller annen oppfatning, nasjonal eller sosial opprinnelse, tilknytning til en nasjonal minoritet, eiendom, fødsel eller annen status.

5. SP art 26 • Art 26. •        Alle er like for loven og har uten noen form for forskjellsbehandling rett til lik beskyttelse av loven. I dette øyemed skal lovgivningen forby enhver form for forskjellsbehandling og sikre alle likeverdig og effektiv beskyttelse mot forskjellsbehandling på noe slikt grunnlag som rase, hudfarge, kjønn, språk, religion, politisk eller annen oppfatning, nasjonal eller sosial opprinnelse, eiendom, fødsel eller stilling forøvrig.

6. CASE OF THLIMMENOS v. GREECE • 40.  The Court recalls that Article 14 of the Convention has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. However, the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of one or more of such provisions and to this extent it is autonomous. For Article 14 to become applicable it suffices that the facts of a case fall within the ambit of another substantive provision of the Convention or its Protocols (see the Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 17, § 36).

7. CASE OF THLIMMENOS v. GREECE • 43.  In order to reach this conclusion, the Court, as opposed to the Commission, does not find it necessary to examine whether the applicant's initial conviction and the authorities' subsequent refusal to appoint him amounted to interference with his rights under Article 9 § 1.

8. CASE OF THLIMMENOS v. GREECE • 44.  The Court has so far considered that the right under Article 14 not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is violated when States treat differently persons in analogous situations without providingan objective and reasonable justification (see the Inze judgment cited above, p. 18, § 41). However, the Court considers that this is not the only facet of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14. The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is also violated when States without an objective and reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different.

9. Likestillingsloven § 3 • Med direkte forskjellsbehandling menes handlinger som • stiller kvinner og menn ulikt fordi de er av forskjellig kjønn, • Med indirekte forskjellsbehandling menes enhver tilsynelatende kjønnsnøytral handling som faktisk virker slik at det ene kjønn stilles dårligere enn det annet.

10. CASE OF THLIMMENOS v. GREECE • 46.  The next question to be addressed is whether Article 14 of the Convention has been complied with. According to its case-law, the Court will have to examine whether the failure to treat the applicant differently from other persons convicted of a serious crime pursued a legitimate aim. • Legitimate aim • 47.  The Court considers that, as a matter of principle, States have a legitimate interest to exclude some offenders from the profession of chartered accountant. However, the Court also considers that, unlike other convictions for serious criminal offences, a conviction for refusing on religious or philosophical grounds to wear the military uniform cannot imply any dishonesty or moral turpitude likely to undermine the offender's ability to exercise this profession. Excluding the applicant on the ground that he was an unfit person was not, therefore, justified.

11. CASE OF THLIMMENOS v. GREECE • Para. 46 (…)If it did the Court will have to examine whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see the Inze judgment cited above, ibid.). • Para . 47 (…)The Court takes note of the Government's argument that persons who refuse to serve their country must be appropriately punished. However, it also notes that the applicant did serve a prison sentence for his refusal to wear the military uniform. In these circumstances, the Court considers that imposing a further sanction on the applicant was disproportionate

12. CASE OF THLIMMENOS v. GREECE • Para 47 (…)It follows that the applicant's exclusion from the profession of chartered accountants did not pursue a legitimate aim. As a result, the Court finds that there existed no objective and reasonable justification for not treating the applicant differently from other persons convicted of a serious crime.

13. EMK TP 12 art 1: 1. The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. 2. No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground such as those mentioned in paragraph 1.