Does the claims fall within the am, Was there discrimination
2 of 17
Ambit test
it does not actually have to fall within the convention breach, must always be fair, - Linguistic case-
3 of 17
Pensions
Need not be provided but they must not be discrimatory. Stec v UK
4 of 17
Zarb Adami v Malta
jury service contray to art4 , held art 14 ambit..
5 of 17
Limits to discrimatory characteristics
Sidabra and Dziatus v Lithunia - former KGB employees banned from employment. But this was a violation there was no link discrimatory.
6 of 17
Magee v UK
Applicant complained of no access in Northern Ireland because of his ethnicty. Held, this was due to diff legal system - no violation.
7 of 17
Thlimmeous v Greece
Jehvovah witnesses not admitted as chartered accountants... due to previous convictions. Unfair, should have distinguished between those who committed.
8 of 17
Indirect discrim - neutral rule but has distinctiive effects
Zarb Adami v Malta
9 of 17
Justification of discrim, where objective and reasonable
Beligina Linguistic
10 of 17
Status of children
Marckx Belgium - adopt child Inze v Austria leg son inherent - vios
11 of 17
Pia and Puncernal v Andora
adopted child, must be legitmate son for inhertance, no reaosnable just to dis btween bio
12 of 17
Child care allowance
Petravic v Austria - father claim parental allowance, only oprn to mothers. Disc but MoA.
13 of 17
Adoption
Frette v France - gay app refused to adopt. No vio. Moa
14 of 17
E.B v France
app in stable sex relationship to adopt. Vio
15 of 17
No Violation. where one party of SC couldnt adopt
Gas and Dubois v France
16 of 17
X v Austria
woman living together one adopts. Narrow MoA
17 of 17
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Art 14 test
Back
Does the claims fall within the am, Was there discrimination
Comments
No comments have yet been made