Osservatorio delle libertà ed istituzioni religiose

Olir

Osservatorio delle Libertà ed Istituzioni Religiose

Sentenza 27 agosto 2015, n.46470/11

Dans son arrêt de Grande Chambre, rendu ce jour dans
l’affaire Parrillo c. Italie (requête no 46470/11), la
Cour européenne des droits de l’homme dit, par seize voix
contre une, qu’il y a eu : Non-violation de l’article 8
(droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale) de la
Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.
L’affaire concernait l’interdiction opposée
à Mme Parrillo par la loi italienne n° 40/2004 de faire don
d’embryons issus d’une fécondation in vitro et non
destinés à une grossesse, afin d’aider la
recherche scientifique. Saisie pour la première fois de cette
question, la Cour a dit que l’article 8 trouvait à
s’appliquer dans cette affaire sous son volet « vie
privée », les embryons en cause renfermant le patrimoine
génétique de Mme Parrillo et représentant donc
une partie constitutive de son identité. La Cour a
d’emblée estimé que l’Italie devait
bénéficier sur cette question délicate
d’une ample marge d’appréciation, ce que confirment
l’absence de consensus européen et les textes
internationaux à ce sujet. La Cour a ensuite relevé que
l’élaboration de la loi n° 40/2004 avait donné
lieu à un important débat et que le législateur
italien avait tenu compte de l’intérêt de
l’État à protéger l’embryon, comme de
celui des individus à exercer leur droit à
l’autodétermination. La Cour a précisé
qu’il n’était pas nécessaire de se pencher
dans cette affaire sur la question, délicate et
controversée, du début de la vie humaine,
l’article 2 (droit à la vie) n’étant pas
invoqué. Notant enfin que rien n’attestait de la
volonté du compagnon décédé de Mme
Parrillo de donner les embryons à des fins de recherche
scientifique, la Cour a conclu que l’interdiction en cause
était « nécessaire dans une société
démocratique ». [Fonte: Communiqué du press –
www.echr.coe.int]

Sentenza 21 luglio 2015, n.18766-36030/11

In the case of Oliari and Others v. Italy (application no. 18766/11
and 36030/11) 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 complaint by three
homosexual couples that under Italian legislation they do not
have the possibility to get married or enter into any other type of
civil union. The Court considered that the legal protection
currently available to same-sex couples in Italy – as was
shown by the applicants’ situation – did not only fail to
provide for the core needs relevant to a couple in a stable
committed relationship, but it was also not sufficiently reliable. A
civil union or registered partnership would be the most
appropriate way for same-sex couples like the applicants to have
their relationship legally recognised. The Court pointed out, in
particular, that there was a trend among Council of Europe member
States towards legal recognition of same-sex couples –
24 out of the 47 member States having legislated in favour of
such recognition – and that the Italian Constitutional
Court had repeatedly called for such protection and recognition.
Furthermore, according to recent surveys, a majority of the Italian
population supported legal recognition of homosexual couples.
[Press Release – European Court of Human Rights]

Sentenza 27 gennaio 2015, n.25358/12

The case concerned the placement in social-service care of a
nine-month-old child who had been born in Russia following a
gestational surrogacy contract entered into by a couple; it
subsequently transpired that they had no biological relationship
with the child. The Court found in particular that the
public-policy considerations underlying Italian
authorities’ decisions – finding that the applicants
had attempted to circumvent the prohibition in Italy on
using surrogacy arrangements and the rules governing
international adoption – could not take precedence over the
best interests of the child, in spite of the absence of any biological
relationship and the short period during which the applicants had
cared for him. Reiterating that the removal of a child from the
family setting was an extreme measure that could be justified only in
the event of immediate danger to that child, the Court considered
that, in the present case, the conditions justifying a removal
had not been met.  [Press Release]

Sentenza 02 ottobre 2014

The applicants, ten founding members of the Church of Scientology
Mission of St. Petersburg, complained about the refusal of Russian
authorities to register their movement as a legal entity. The Court
ruled that there had been a violation of Article 9 in light of Article
11.

Sentenza 26 giugno 2014, n.26587/07

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in favor of
Jehovah’s Witnesses and their right to worship without unlawful
interference from the Russian authorities. In its unanimous judgment,
the Court found that Russia violated Articles 5 (right to liberty and
security) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) of the
European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) when police
overwhelmed a religious service with an illegal raid on the night of
April 12, 2006.

Sentenza 12 giugno 2014, n.33203/08

The Court reiterates that the right of believers to freedom of
religion, which includes the right to manifest one’s religion in
community with others, encompasses the expectation that believers will
be allowed to associate freely, without arbitrary State intervention.
A decision to dissolve a religious community amounts to an
interference with the right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of
the Convention interpreted in the light of the right to freedom of
association enshrined in Article 11.