Advertisement

Gender Equality and the European Convention on Human Rights

  • Sandra FredmanEmail author
Reference work entry
Part of the International Human Rights book series (IHR)

Abstract

The equality guarantee in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has often been regarded as an insipid right. However, recent jurisprudence indicates that the European Court of Human Rights has taken a more robust stand. This chapter assesses recent developments to determine whether we can now discern a coherent conception of the right to equality. The article draws on a four-dimensional conception of substantive equality, which assesses the case law according to whether it furthers the complementary aims of redressing disadvantage (distributive dimension); addressing stereotypes, prejudice, humiliation, and violence (recognition dimension); facilitating participation (participative dimension); and accommodating difference, including through structural change (transformative dimension). The article concludes that the judgments have important resonances with this approach, particularly in relation to the distributive, recognition, and participative dimensions. The Court remains cautious, however, in relation to transformation. It also has a worrying tendency to revert unexpectedly to formal equality.

Keywords

Right to equality Substantive equality Discrimination Gender discrimination Sexual orientation discrimination Transformative equality article 14 European convention on human rights 

References

  1. Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v United Kingdom (1985) Applications Nos 9214/80, 9473/81, 9474/81, Merits, 28 MayGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnardóttir OM (2014) The differences that make a difference: recent developments on the discrimination grounds and the margin of appreciation under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Hum Rights Law Rev 14:647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belgian Linguistic Case (No. 2) (1968) Applications Nos 1474/62 et al., Merits, 23 JulyGoogle Scholar
  4. Bevacqua and S. v Bulgaria (2008) Application No 71127/01, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 12 JuneGoogle Scholar
  5. Connors v United Kingdom (2004) Application No 66746/01, Merits, 27 MayGoogle Scholar
  6. D.H. and Others v Czech Republic (2007) Application No 57325/00, Merits, 13 NovemberGoogle Scholar
  7. D.H. v Czech Republic (2006) Application No 57325/00, Merits, 7 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  8. Dudgeon v United Kingdom (1981) Application No 7525/76, Merits, 2 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  9. E.B. v France (2008) Application No 43546/02, Merits, 22 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  10. Ely JH (1980) Democracy and distrust: a theory of judicial review. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Emel Boyraz v Turkey (2014) Application No 61960/08, Merits, 2 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  12. Eremia v Republic of Moldova (2013) Application No 3564/11, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 28 MayGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission (2013) Press release: childcare: Commission calls on member states to do more, 3 June. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-495_en.htm. Accessed 3 Feb 2016
  14. European Commission (2014) Commission recommendation on pay transparency and the gender pay gap – Frequently Asked Questions, 7 March. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-160_en.htm. Accessed 3 Feb 2016
  15. Fraser N, Honneth A (2003) Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Fredman S (2011) Discrimination law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Fredman S (2014) Reversing roles: bringing men into the frame. Int J Law Context 10:442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freedland M, Kountouris N (2012) Employment equality and personal work relations – a critique of Jivraj v Hashwani. Ind Law J 41:56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerards J (2013) The discrimination grounds of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Hum Rights Law Rev 13:99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gill T, Monaghan K (2003) Justification in direct sex discrimination law: taboo upheld. Ind Law J 32:115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glor v Switzerland Application (2009) No 13444/04, Merits, 30 AprilGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002) Application No 28957/95, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 11 JulyGoogle Scholar
  23. Griggs v Duke Power Co (1971) 401 U.S. 424Google Scholar
  24. Hämäläinen v Finland (2014) Application No 37359/09, Merits, 16 JulyGoogle Scholar
  25. Hashwani v Jivraj (2011) UCKSC 40Google Scholar
  26. Inze v Austria (1987) Application No 8695/79, Merits, 28 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  27. Karner v Austria (2003) Application No 40016/98, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 24 JulyGoogle Scholar
  28. Kiss v Hungary (2013) Application No 11146/11, Merits, 29 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  29. Kiyutin v Russia (2011), Application No 2700/10, Merits, 10 MarchGoogle Scholar
  30. L. and V. v Austria (2003) Application No 39392/98 and 39829/98, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 9 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  31. Mandla v Lee (1983) 2 AC 548 (HL)Google Scholar
  32. Markin v Russia (2012) Application No 30078/06, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 22 MarchGoogle Scholar
  33. McCrudden C (2008) Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights. Eur J Int Law 19:655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCrudden C (2012) Two views of subordination: the personal scope of employment discrimination law in Jivraj v Hashwani. Ind Law J 41:30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mileusnic and Mileusnic-Espenheim v Croatia (2015) Application No 66953/09, Merits, 19 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  36. Oliari v Italy (2015) Applications Nos 18766/11 and 36030/11, Merits, 21 JulyGoogle Scholar
  37. Opuz v Turkey (2009) Application No 33401/02, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 9 JuneGoogle Scholar
  38. P.B. and J.S. v Austria (2010) Application No 18984/02, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 22 JulyGoogle Scholar
  39. Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez v Sesa Start España ETT SA (2010) Case C-104/09 ECR I-08661Google Scholar
  40. Petrovic v Austria (1998) Application No 20458/92, Merits, 27 MarchGoogle Scholar
  41. R (European Roma Rights Centre and Others) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport (2004) UKHL 55Google Scholar
  42. S.A.S. v France (2014) Application No 43835/11, Merits, 1 JulyGoogle Scholar
  43. Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v Portugal (1999) Application No 33290/96, Merits, 21 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  44. Schalk and Kopf v Austria (2010) Application No 30141/04, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 24 JuneGoogle Scholar
  45. SL v Austria Application (2003) No 45330/99, Merits, 9 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) Applications Nos 33985/96 and 33986/96, Merits, 27 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  47. Stec v United Kingdom (2006) Applications Nos 65731/01 and 65900/01, Merits, 12 AprilGoogle Scholar
  48. Thlimmenos v Greece (2000) Application No 34369/97, Merits, 6 AprilGoogle Scholar
  49. Timmer A (2011) Toward an anti-stereotyping approach for the European Court of Human Rights. Hum Rights Law Rev 11:707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vallianatos v Greece (2013) Applications Nos 29381/09 and 32684/09, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 7 NovemberGoogle Scholar
  51. X v Austria (2013) Application No 19010/07, Merits, 19 FebruaryGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rhodes Professor of the Laws of the British Commonwealth and the USAOxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations