A week in which the Westminster sexual exploitation scandal continued to claim scalps, there was an important report on House of Lords reform – and Brexit rumbled on…
Victimisation and public interest disclosure in school
In Miss S Bi v E-ACT (England and Wales: Public Interest Disclosure: Race Discrimination: Religion or Belief Discrimination) UKET 1304471/2015, the ET upheld the claim of Ms Suriyah Bi, a Muslim teaching assistant, that her dismissal constituted victimisation under ss.27 and 39 Equality Act 2010 Continue reading →
Yet another property dispute between the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church.
In Orăştie Romanian Greek Catholic Archpriesthood United to Rome and Orăştie Romanian Greek Catholic Parish United to Rome v Romania ECHR 913 [in French], the applicants sought the restitution of their church, which had been expropriated by the Communist regime and handed over to the Orthodox in 1948. They were unsuccessful before the domestic courts [7-17], the High Court of Cassation and Justice noting that 90.71% of the population of Orăştie was Orthodox and 1.02% Greek-Catholic . Continue reading →
The applicant, Károly Nagy, brought a compensation claim against the Hungarian Reformed Church following his dismissal as minister of Gödöllő parish. Disciplinary proceedings had been brought against him in June 2005 after a local newspaper had reported him as saying that state subsidies to a Calvinist boarding school had been paid unlawfully. He was immediately suspended and eventually dismissed, with effect from 1 May 2006, following a decision by the ecclesiastical courts. His attempts to sue in the labour and the civil courts failed for want of jurisdiction and the Supreme Court held that there was no enforceable contract between Mr Nagy and the Church. Continue reading →
The Greek-Catholic parish of Glod sued the Orthodox parish of Glod for restitution of the church that had belonged to it before the dissolution of the Greek-Catholic Church by the Communist regime in 1948. It was unsuccessful before Zalău County Court; and the Court of Appeal of Cluj and the Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice upheld the judgment at first instance [4-9]. Before the Fourth Section, the applicants alleged a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR (property), Continue reading →
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled on two Belgian cases involving bans on wearing the niqab in public.
In Belcacemi and Oussar v Belgium  ECHR 655[in French], the applicants – Ms Samia Belcacemi (a Belgian national) and Ms Yamina Oussar (a Moroccan national living in Belgium) – challenged the Belgian Law of 1 June 2011 banning the wearing in public places of clothing which partially or totally covers the face. Continue reading →
In Tonyuk v Ukraine  ECHR 492the applicant, Yustyna Tonyuk, a Ukrainian national born in 1941 and living in Yaremche, in the Ivano-Frankivsk Region, complained about the existence and use of a cemetery that had been created adjacent to her home. Ms Tonyuk had obtained two judgments from the national courts banning the use of the cemetery for future burials on the ground that its proximity to her home was in breach of the applicable sanitary standards. Her house was some ten metres from the cemetery boundary, her yard was separated from the cemetery by a wire mesh fence and the nearest row of graves was about a metre from the fence (some eleven metres from her house) and clearly visible from her yard . Continue reading →
Brexit rumbles on, but perhaps the most important event of the week was the outcome of the Northern Ireland Assembly Election – on which we would not presume to comment…
Son (or more accurately daughter) of Miller?
Gina Miller, who mounted the successful challenge in the Supreme Court to the Prime Minister’s proposal to trigger Article 50 TEU by using the Royal Prerogative, has said that she is looking at launching a new challenge if Parliament is not given a vote on the final terms of Brexit. Speaking to Bloomberg, Ms Miller explained: Continue reading →