Equality and Non-discrimination

Primary tabs

Caselaw

Upon going into labor, Ms. A.S., a member of the Roma community, needed an emergency Caesarian section. Immediately before the surgery, a doctor asked Ms. A.S. to sign consent forms on which the doctor had hand-written a statement that Ms. A.S. consented to a sterilization procedure. Ms. A.S. did not understand the statement or that she had been sterilized until after the operation took place. Her claim of civil rights violations and negligent sterilization was rejected at the local level. In her communication to the CEDAW Committee, it found that the Ms. A.S.

Naz Foundation India, una organización no gubernamental comprometida con el tratamiento y prevención del VIH/SIDA, presentó una demanda de interés público ante el Tribunal Superior de Nueva Delhi cuestionando la constitucionalidad del art. 377 del Código Penal de la India, el cual declara ilegal todo acto sexual "antinatural", definido como todo aquel diferente de la relación sexual heterosexual. El Tribunal Superior desestimó la presentación original de 2004 por falta de hechos o antecedentes que justificaran la acción judicial.

The Naz Foundation India, a non-governmental organization committed to HIV/AIDS intervention and prevention, filed a public interest litigation in the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 377 of the India Penal Code, which makes it illegal to engage in any "unnatural" sexual act, defined as sex other than heterosexual intercourse. The Delhi High Court dismissed the original writ of petition in 2004 for lack of a cause of action.

FEANTSA denunció que Francia violaba el artículo 31 de la Carta Social Europea revisada debido a que no aseguraba el derecho efectivo a la vivienda para sus residentes en diversos contextos.

FEANTSA alleged that France was in violation of Article 31 of the Revised European Social Charter (RESC) due to its failure to ensure an effective right to housing for its residents in a range of different contexts.

This petition was brought to challenge the constitutionality of imposing a "capitation fee" (a fee based on the number of persons to whom a service is provided, rather than the actual cost of providing a service) on those people who wanted to enter a private medical school and were not admitted to the "government seats". These seats are reserved by the Government of India for members of communities that are explicitly recognized by the Indian Constitution as requiring support to overcome historic discrimination, or other groups designated by the government.

Sally Chapman purchased a piece of land in 1985 with the intention of living on it in a caravan. She was refused permission to live on the land by the District Council and was given 15 months to vacate it. She claimed her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated, including Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (violation of prohibition of discrimination). Following an invitation of the President of the Court (according to Art 36 § 2), the European Roma Rights Centre intervened as a third party in the written procedure.

Autism‑Europe adujo que la aplicación por parte de Francia de leyes relacionadas con la educación para personas con discapacidades era extremadamente insatisfactoria. La gran mayoría (80 a 90 por ciento) de los adultos jóvenes y niños autistas no tenía acceso a servicios educativos adecuados. En base a los índices actuales de ocupación de plazas en institutos de educación especial, Autism-Europe estimaba que se tardaría 100 años en eliminar el déficit de la lista de espera oficial, que entonces incluía a 39.514 personas (incluso más, teniendo en cuenta la definición de la OMS).

The claimants filed a tutela action against several state institutions alleging failure to comply with their mission of protecting displaced persons and to effectively respond to the displaced’s requests related to housing, access to production projects, health care, education and humanitarian aid.

En 1990, el organismo sin fines de lucro que prestaba servicios de interpretación en lenguaje de señas en la región continental del sur de la provincia canadiense de British Columbia comenzó a enfrentar serias dificultades financieras y buscó asistencia por medio de funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud. La asistencia le fue denegada.