LegalPost.eu

In its decision in the case of Lee v. the United Kingdom (application no. 18860/19) the European Court of Human Rights has, by a majority, declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final. The case concerned the refusal by a Christian-run bakery to make a cake with the words “Support Gay Marriage” and the QueerSpace logo on it which the applicant had ordered and the proceedings that had followed. The applicant, Gareth Lee, is a British national who was born in 1969 and lives in Belfast (United Kingdom). He is associated with QueerSpace, an organisation for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in Northern Ireland. Although same-sex marriage had been enacted in the rest of the UK in 2014, it was made legal in Northern Ireland only in 2020.  In 2014, Mr Lee ordered a cake for a gay activist event set to take place not long after the Northern Irish Assembly had narrowly rejected legalising same-sex marriage for the third time. He ordered it from Asher’s bakery.

The EIB, the European Union's bank, is seeking to recruit for its Legal Directorate (JU) – Legal Department, Corporate (CORP) – Regulatory Matters Division (REG) at its headquarters in Luxembourg, a (Associate) Lawyer - Specialized in Regulatory and Governance Matters. This is a full - time position at grade 4/5. The term of this contract will be 4 years. Panel interviews are anticipated for end February 2022. The EIB offers fixed-term contracts of up to a maximum of 6 years, according to business needs, with a possibility to convert to a permanent contract, subject to organisational requirements and individual performance. The successful candidate will deliver the legal services required by the Bank in the area of EU and international banking and financial regulations and institutional law, including in relation to prudential and governance regulatory requirements and rules. Deadline for applications: 31st January 2022. More details and applications here (photo: freepik.com)

The Council of Europe’s European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ) has adopted an  action plan on digitalisation for a better justice for 2022-2025 , aiming at reconciling the efficiency of new technologies and the respect of fundamental rights. This action plan sets the major orientations of the CEPEJ, whose main objective is always to place the user at the centre of the concerns, even in a digitised environment or in the course of digitalisation, by providing the user effective and quality public service of justice. These orientations are articulated around major axes aiming at ensuring that justice is always transparent, collaborative, human, people-centred and accessible, enlightened, and finally responsible and responsive. The CEPEJ has also adopted a  revised roadmap  for ensuring an appropriate follow-up of its  European Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment . Finally, the CEPEJ has adopted guidelines o

by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer LL.M. At the stage before concluding a loan agreement between the credit institution and the prospective borrower, the inequality regarding the negotiating power of the parties reaches its peak in order to complete the agreement. The pressure to agree on the contract clauses, which usually reflects the imbalance of rights and obligations between the two parties and while several of which are abusive, is not a neutral pressure, but the pressure of the financially and authoritatevely strong against the financially weak and mentally vulnerable. And this is despite the fact that the basic terms have previously been judged by case law or even legislated as abusive. One of the ways to avoid abuse by the credit institutions' position is the requirement of good faith, in the assessment of which, special attention must be paid to the negotiating power of both parties. It should be also assessed whether the consumer was motivated in any way to accept the clause

In its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway (application no. 15379/16) 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 decision by the Norwegian authorities to allow the adoption of a child by a foster family against his mother’s wishes. The mother, a Somali national who had moved to Norway, did not ask for her son’s return as he had spent a long time with his foster parents, but wished for him to maintain his cultural and religious roots.  The Court decided to examine the applicant’s wish to have her son brought up in line with her Muslim faith as an integral part of her complaint under Article 8, as interpreted and applied in the light of Article 9 (freedom of religion). It was not necessary to examine separately any alleged failures to comply with Article 9.  The Court pointed out that various in

This year’s  UN International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women  (25 November) shines a spotlight on the digital dimension of violence against women and girls. From body shaming (mocking someone’s bodily shape, size, or appearance) and cyber-flashing (sending unsolicited sexual images online) to doxing (sharing online a target’s personal information without consent), the rapid development of information and communication technologies also facilitates new avenues for violence against women and girls, exposing them to more risks of being abused. In its first recommendation on the “ digital dimension ” of violence against women, the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence ( GREVIO ) defines and outlines the problem of both gender based violence against women committed online and technology-enabled attacks against women, such as legally obtainable tracking devices that enable perpetrators to stalk their victims.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled against Turkey on 23.7.2021 for the illegal pre-trial detention of 427 Turkish judges following the failed coup attempt in July 2016. The applicants are 427 Turkish nationals, all members of the Court of Cassation or the Supreme Administrative Court, or judges in lower courts or prosecutors at the time of the events giving rise to the applications.  The case concerns the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants, all of whom were sitting as judges or prosecutors at the time, in the aftermath of the military coup attempt of 15 July 2016, on suspicion of being members of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation / Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması).  Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain that they were placed in pre-trial detention in breach of the domestic law governing the arrest and p