The Court has also examined situations of discrimination that took place on the basis of several grounds operating separately or interacting with each other at the same time. Both Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 prohibit discrimination on a large number of grounds, making a claim on more than one ground theoretically possible. Furthermore, the non-exhaustive list of grounds of discrimination contained in Article 14 allows the Court to extend and include grounds not expressly mentioned therein.<\/p>\n
For instance, in N.B. v. Slovakia, 2012, a case concerning forced sterilisation of a Roma woman at a public hospital, the applicant expressly complained that she was discriminated against on more than one ground (race\/ethnic origin and sex). The Court stated that the practice of sterilisation of women without their prior informed consent affected vulnerable individuals from various ethnic groups (\u00a7 96). The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention but did not find it necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 14.<\/p>\n
In B.S. v. Spain, 2012, a female sex worker of Nigerian origin and legally resident in Spain alleged that the Spanish police abused her physically and verbally on the basis of her race, gender and profession. The Court considered that the decisions made by the domestic courts failed to take account of the applicant\u2019s particular vulnerability inherent in her position as an African woman working as a prostitute (\u00a7 62) and found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3.<\/p>\n
Another example is the case of S.A.S. v. France [GC], 2014, concerning a ban on the full covering of the face in public places. Here, the Court acknowledged that the ban had specific negative effects on the situation of Muslim women who, for religious reasons, wished to wear the full-face veil in public, but considered this measure to have an objective and reasonable justification (\u00a7 161). Consequently, it found no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9. In Yocheva and Ganeva
\nv. Bulgaria, 2021, the Court held that an applicant (single mother) had been discriminated against on the basis of both sex and family status when the authorities denied her a family allowance (normally granted when the father has died) when her children had not been recognised by their father.<\/p>\n
The case of Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal (2017) concerned a decision to reduce the amount of non-pecuniary damage initially awarded to a female victim of medical negligence, which resulted in her inability to have sexual relations. In order to justify this reduction, the Supreme Administrative Court had relied on the fact that the applicant was already 50 years old and had two children at the time of the surgery. It considered that at this age sexuality was not as important as in\u00a0younger years and that its significance diminished with age. It also stated that the applicant probably only needed to take care of her husband, considering the age of her children.<\/p>\n
The Strasbourg Court further found significant that, in two previous sets of medical malpractice proceedings brought by two male patients (respectively 55 and 59 years old), the domestic court considered that the fact that the men could no longer have normal sexual relations had affected their self-esteem and resulted in a \u201ctremendous shock\u201d and \u201cstrong mental shock\u201d without considering the age of the applicants as being relevant. As the Court noted, the question in issue here was not considerations of age or sex as such, but rather the assumption that sexuality was not as important for a fifty-year-old woman and mother of two children as for someone of a younger age.<\/p>\n
That assumption reflected a traditional idea of female sexuality as being essentially linked to child-bearing purposes and thus ignored its physical and psychological relevance for the self-fulfillment of women as people. Apart from being, in a way, judgmental, it omitted to take into consideration other dimensions of women\u2019s sexuality in the specific case of the applicant. In other words, the Supreme Administrative Court made a general assumption without attempting to look at its validity in the specific case of the applicant herself (\u00a7 52). Finding a breach of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, the Court concluded that the applicant\u2019s age and sex appear to have been decisive factors in the final decision, introducing a difference of treatment based on those grounds.<\/p>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Direct and indirect discrimination Article 14 does not provide a definition of what constitutes direct discrimination. The expression \u201cdirect discrimination\u201d describes a \u201cdifference in treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar situations\u201d and \u201cbased on an identifiable characteristic, or \u2018status\u2019\u201d (Biao v. Denmark [GC], 2016, \u00a7 89; Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[348],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23398"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23398"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23398\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23590,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23398\/revisions\/23590"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}