Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feminist Justice and the European Court of Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legal Issues of International Law from a Gender Perspective

Part of the book series: Gender Perspectives in Law ((GPL,volume 3))

Abstract

Gender equality is clearly one of the pillar principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Protection of women’s rights can be treated through an individual right, dealing with its substantial and procedural limb (ex. sex discrimination cases), or as an (aggravated) aspect or an attribute of a violation of a right enshrined by the Convention (ex. gender equality in connection with rights to freedom of expression or religion). Despite its principled position and having in mind the present state of jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court (ECtHR), it could be concluded that feminist justice is still underdeveloped in comparison with the growing need for the protection of women’s rights, insisting on personal integrity.

Observing from a broader perspective, the ECtHR’s case law regarding feminist justice can be categorized into three clusters: (1) cases relating to achieving formal equality between men and women and prohibiting direct gender discrimination, focusing on the idea of achieving “sameness with men” (jurisprudence under Article 14); (2) cases relating to issues that may, in theory, affect both men and women, but in reality, disproportionately affect women and require special (additional) protection, such as domestic violence and trafficking; and (3) cases relating to issues that are specific to women’s rights, such as violence against women and reproductive rights.

The Court has gradually widened its approach concerning the protection of women’s rights, giving rise to a ‘living instrument doctrine’ by interpreting the Convention “in the light of present-day conditions”. This approach of evaluative interpretation of the Convention is necessary in order to address actual challenges of violation of human rights of women and girls, which were not envisaged in the text of the Convention 70 years ago.

The author tends to make an analysis on how contemporary international law deals with feminist justice, with a special emphasis on the most important ECtHR cases. The contribution should give an analytical overview through the prism of direct and indirect gender discrimination, having in mind the mentioned three clusters, with an emphasis on the recent case-law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Tyrer v. The United Kingdom, para. 31.

  2. 2.

    Airey v. Ireland, para. 24.

  3. 3.

    Konstantin Markin v. Russia (GC), para. 12; Jurčić v. Croatia, para. 65.

  4. 4.

    S.M. v. Croatia [GC], para. 292. See also: Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], para. 73.

  5. 5.

    Radacic (2008), p. 842.

  6. 6.

    The most comprehensive treaty on the rights of women, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) condemns any form of discrimination against women and reaffirms the importance of guaranteeing equal political, economic, social, cultural and civil rights to women and men. Equality is guaranteed to woman regardless of their marital status also by requiring the HCPs to enact national legislation banning discrimination (Articles 1, 2, and 3). By allowing the HCPs to take temporary special measures to accelerate the achievement of equality in practice between men and women (Article 4), and to take actions to modify social and cultural patterns that perpetuate discrimination (Article 5), the CEDAW gives adequate general framework for the protection of women’s rights, while permitting the states to determine and design concrete steps, actions and measures in order to implement the principles there set forth. An emphasis on need for equal access to education has its provision (Article 10), which is crucially important for woman’s independence and emancipation. The need for childcare facilities and other social services to help women fulfil family obligations along with work responsibilities and participation in public life (Article 11) and non-discriminatory health services for women, including family planning services (Article 12) are emphasized. In addition, by accepting binding effect of the CEDAW, the HCPs obliged themselves that contracts and other private instruments that restrict the legal capacity of women “shall be deemed null and void” (Article 15), and that appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination in matters relating to marriage and family shall be undertaken, stressing the equal responsibilities of men and women in family life (Article 16).

  7. 7.

    The following three are notable. First, The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (the Convention of Belém do Pará) recognizes the rights of women to be free from violence in both public and private. The right of all women to enjoy and exercise the rights protected by other regional and international human rights instruments is specifically codified (Article 4). The Convention introduces the HCPs’ obligation to undertake affirmative steps to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women and to progressively undertake measures to address the social and cultural factors contributing to violence or discrimination against women (Article 7). Second, the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa (the Maputo Protocol) puts an emphasis on the particularly important issues for Africa, such as genital mutilation. There women’s dignity is elevated to the level of a particular right (Article 3), which is in harmony with general standing that human dignity is a material or substantive source of all human rights. Having in mind that the feminist justice should reflect gender equality, woman’s integrity and independence, it is topical to underline two specific rights that the Protocol codifies: right to equality in marriage (Article 6) and the right to decide whether to have children (Article 14). Finally, The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (the Istanbul Convention) is a further step towards protection of woman’s rights, stipulating that sexual harassment, rape, forced marriage, honor crimes, genital mutilation and other forms of violence constitute serious human rights violations. The issue of implementation of these provisions is a theme per se, with lots of challenges, such as the attitude of some HCPs towards their obligations deriving from these treaties.

  8. 8.

    Exempli causa: Molla Sali v. Greece (GC, judgment in merits), paras. 70-72 (reference to Concluding observations CEDAW and the UN Human Rights Committee), Dubská and Krejzová v. The Czech Republic (GC) paras. 65-66. (referring to concluding observations of CEDAW), S.M. v Croatia, para. 191 (Case law of the Inter-American Court), Christine Goodwin v. UK, Application no. 28957/95, para. 43 (reference to the ECJ), Konstantin Markin v. Russia, Application no. 30078/06, paras. 65-68. (reference to ECJ).

  9. 9.

    Exempli causa: Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, S.A.S. v. France.

  10. 10.

    S.M. v. Croatia [GC].

  11. 11.

    Špadijer v. Montenegro.

  12. 12.

    CJEU, C-385/11, Isabel Elbal Moreno v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), 22 November 2012.

  13. 13.

    Ünal Tekeli v. Turkey.

  14. 14.

    Jurčić v. Croatia, para. 69.

  15. 15.

    Recent case of Napotnik v. Romania has provoked, rightly, a lot of academic controversial discussions in this regard.

  16. 16.

    Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandi v. the United Kingdom, para 78.

  17. 17.

    Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandi v. the United Kingdom, para. 78.

  18. 18.

    Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandi v. the United Kingdom, para. 82.

  19. 19.

    Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandi v. the United Kingdom, para. 78.

  20. 20.

    Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandi v. the United Kingdom, para. 79.

  21. 21.

    Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandi v. the United Kingdom, para. 81.

  22. 22.

    Marckx v. Belgium.

  23. 23.

    Exempli causa: Ünal Tekeli v. Turkey, para. 63, Jurčić v. Croatia, paras. 73 and 84, Konstantin Markin v. Russia (GC), para. 127.

  24. 24.

    Molla Sali v. Greece (GC, Judgment in Merits), paras. 158, 161.

  25. 25.

    Stec and Others v. UK, para. 52.

  26. 26.

    Stec and Others v. UK, paras. 61-66.

  27. 27.

    Stec and Others v. UK, para. 52.

  28. 28.

    Stec and Others v. UK, para. 59.

  29. 29.

    Sjöholm (2017), p. 195.

  30. 30.

    E.B. v. France [GC], para. 47.

  31. 31.

    Centre for legal resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania, para. 156.

  32. 32.

    Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judges Ziemele and Bianku to the Câmpeanu case, para. 1.

  33. 33.

    Airey v. Ireland (1979), para. 30.

  34. 34.

    Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC].

  35. 35.

    For example, see Siliadin v France, paras. 89, 112.

  36. 36.

    See J. and others v Austria, para. 33.

  37. 37.

    Radačić (2008), p. 843.

  38. 38.

    Etinksi (2015), pp. 41–45.

  39. 39.

    Nachova and Others v Bulgaria [GC], para. 161.

  40. 40.

    Concurring Opinion of Judge Turković in S.M. v. Croatia.

  41. 41.

    Nachova and Others v Bulgaria [GC], 270.

  42. 42.

    Sjöholm (2017), p. 212.

  43. 43.

    Sjöholm (2017), p. 212.

  44. 44.

    Sjöholm (2017), p. 212.

  45. 45.

    Sjöholm (2017), p. 212.

  46. 46.

    Volodina v. Russia (no. 2), paras. 62–67.

  47. 47.

    Opuz v. Turkey, para. 130.

  48. 48.

    paras. 157–161.

  49. 49.

    Kurt v. Austria [GC], § 165-66, and Volodina v. Russia, para. 92.

  50. 50.

    Tkheladze v. Georgia, para. 48.

  51. 51.

    Opuz v. Turkey, paras. 129–130, Tkheladze v. Georgia para. 49.

  52. 52.

    A and B. v. Georgia, para. 49.

  53. 53.

    Concurring opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, in Valiuliene v. Lithuania, paras. 28–29.

  54. 54.

    Concurring opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, in Valiuliene v. Lithuania, paras. 28–29.

  55. 55.

    Sabalić v. Croatia, para. 93–98.

  56. 56.

    Špadijer v. Montenegro, paras. 1, 66 and 69, Sandra Janković v. Croatia, para. 27, and Dolopoulos v. Greece, paras. 35–37.

  57. 57.

    Špadijer v. Montenegro, paras. 1, 66, 34 and 69.

  58. 58.

    Špadijer v. Montenegro, para. 68, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia, para. 126.

  59. 59.

    See the Preamble of Protocol No. 12.

  60. 60.

    Belgian Linguistic case (No. 2); Stec and Others v. The United Kingdom.

  61. 61.

    Jurčic v. Croatia, para. 76.

  62. 62.

    Napotnik V. Romania, para. 77.

  63. 63.

    Etinski (2015), p. 56.

  64. 64.

    Špadijer v. Montenegro.

  65. 65.

    Jurčic v. Croatia.

References

  • Etinski R (2015) Concept of indirect discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu 70:41–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Radačić I (2008) Critical review of jurisprudence: an occasional series, gender equality jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Eur J Int Law 19(4):841–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöholm M (2017) Gender-sensitive norm interpretation by regional Human Rights Law Systems. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

Online Database

Cases

  • A and B v. Georgia - 73975/16, Judgment 10 February 2022

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. The United Kingdom, Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81, 9474/81, Judgment 28 May 1985

    Google Scholar 

  • Airey v. Ireland, No. 6289/73, Judgment 9 October 1979

    Google Scholar 

  • Belgian Linguistic case (No. 2). No. 2126/64, Judgment 23 July 1968

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for legal resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania, No. 47848/08, Judgment 17 July 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • D.H. and others v. The Czech Republic [GC], No. 57325/00 Judgment 13 November 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolopoulos v. Greece (dec.), No. 36656/14, Decision 17 November 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • E.B. v. France [GC], No. 43546/02, Judgment 22 January 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajduova v. Slovakia, No. 2660/03, Judgment 30 November 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurčić v. Croatia, 2021, 54711/15, Judgment 4 February 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], Nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, Judgment 24 January 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Konstantin Markin v. Russia (GC), No. 30078/06, Judgment 22 March 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurt v. Austria [GC], no. 62903/15, Judgment 15 June 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, No. 44774/98, Judgment 10 November 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Marckx v. Belgium, No. 6833/74, Judgment 13 June 1979

    Google Scholar 

  • Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], No. 20452/14, Judgment 18 June 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachova and Others v Bulgaria [GC], Nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, Judgment 06 July 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Napotnik v. Romania 33139/13, Judgment 20 October 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • Opuz v. Turkey, No. 33401/02, Judgment 09 June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson v. the United Kingdom, No. 8374/03, Judgment 22 August 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], Nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, Judgment 20 March 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabalić v. Croatia, No. 50231/13, Judgment 14 January 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandra Janković v. Croatia, No. 38478/05, Judgment 5 March 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • S.A.S. v. FRANCE, No. 43835/11, Judgment 1 July 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • S.M. v. Croatia [GC], No. 60561/14, Judgment 25 June 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • Söderman v. Sweden [GC], No. 5786/08, Judgment 12 November 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Stec and Others v. The United Kingdom [GC], No. 65731/01, Judgment 12 April 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Špadijer v. Montenegro, No. 31549/18, Judgment 9 November 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Tkhelidze v. Georgia, No. 33056/17, Judgment 08 July 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyrer v. The United Kingdom, No. 5856/72, Judgment 25 April 1978

    Google Scholar 

  • Valiuliene v. Lithuania, No 33234/07, Judgment 6 March 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Volodina v. Russia, No. 41261/17, Judgment 9 July 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Volodina v. Russia (No. 2), No. 40419/19, Judgment 14 September 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Ünal Tekeli v. Turkey, No. 29865/96, Judgment 16.11.2004

    Google Scholar 

  • X and Y v. the Netherlands, No. 8978/80, Judgment 26 March 1985

    Google Scholar 

  • Y. v. Slovenia, No. 41107/10, Judgment 28 May 2015

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France

    Ivana Jelić

Authors
  1. Ivana Jelić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivana Jelić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Ivana Krstić

  2. Department of Law, LUMSA, Palermo, Italy

    Marco Evola

  3. University of Cádiz, Cadiz, Spain

    Maria Isabel Ribes Moreno

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jelić, I. (2023). Feminist Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. In: Krstić, I., Evola, M., Ribes Moreno, M.I. (eds) Legal Issues of International Law from a Gender Perspective . Gender Perspectives in Law, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13459-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13459-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-13458-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-13459-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation