Academic literature on the topic 'Sexual minorities – Legal status, laws, etc. – European Union countries'

The peninsula of Athos in Chalkidiki became a center of organized monachal life in monasteries in the year 963, when with the initiative of the Byzantine emperor Nichephorus Phocas the Monastery of Great Laura was founded. Since that time Mount Athos (=MA) became the "Holy Mountain" and has attracted the moral and material support of the Byzantine emperors, various Orthodox countries and the flock till today. During this long period of more then one thousand years, MA was armed with a privileged legal status, the existence of which continues till now. The legal status of MA is based on three foundations: I. The law of the Hellenic Republic, II. The Public International Law, and III. The European Law. I. Fundamental significance for the status of MA have the provisions of article 105 of the Greek Constitution. Then is the Charter of MA, which is drawn up and voted by the Athonite monachal authorities and afterwards ratified by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Greek Parliament. The Charter is a law of superior formal force in comparison to the other laws. According to the Constitution and the Charter, MA has an ancient privileged status and is a self-governed part of the Greek State, whose sovereignty remains intact. Spiritually MA is under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, direct in the sense that the Ecumenical Patriarch is also the local bishop of MA The territory of the peninsula is exempt from expropriation and is divided among the twenty Athonite monasteries exclusively. The administrative power lies in self-administration of the first and the second degree. The first is exercised by the ruling twenty monasteries. This number may not be changed, nor may their position in the preeminence, nor towards their dependencies (skates, cells, hermitages). Nowadays all the monasteries are coenobitic, i.e. the monks share a common life and have no private property. The monasteries are administered by the abbot, the Elders' Assembly and the Brotherhood. Second degree administration is operated by: 1. the Holy Community. It is comprised by twenty monks members, each of whom represents one monastery, 2. the Holy Community's executive organ is the Hiera Epistassia, which comprises four monks drawn annually from four monasteries in rotation. The leader of the Hiera Epistassia is called the First (= Protos). The Hiera Epistassis also performs specific duties as police force, police court and municipality of Karyes, the capital town of MA The legislative power is in the hands of: 1. The Holy Community as far as concerns the Charter of MA, 2. the Extraordinary Biannual Twenty-Members Assembly, which draws up the regulative provisions, and 3. the Greek State, as far as concerns: a) the rights and the duties of the (civil) Governor of MA, b) the judicial power of the Athonite authorities, and c) the custom and taxation privileges granted by the State to MA The judicial power belongs to: 1. the monastic courts (the abbot with the Elders' Assembly), 2. the Holy Community, 3. the Hiera Epistassia, and 4. the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The observance of the regimes is in the spiritual field under the supreme supervision of the Patriarchate and in the administrative under the supervision of the State, which is also exclusively responsible for safeguarding public order and security. These responsibilities of the State are exercised through the (civil) Governor of MA, whose rights and duties are determined by common law. All persons leading a monastic life in MA acquire the Greek citizenship without further formalities, upon admission in a monastery as novices or monks. Also persons who are not Orthodox Christians or they are schismatic Orthodox are prohibited from dwelling in MA II. The first international treaty that recognized an international protection of the MA status was that of San Stefano (1878), but only for the Russian monks. The Treaty of Berlin (also 1878) recognized the same protection for all the monks who were not borne in the Ottoman empire. Its article n? 62,8 was as follows: "Les moines du Mont Athos, quel que soit leur pays d'origine, seront maintenus dans leurs possessions et avantages ant?rieurs et jouiront, sans aucune exception, d'une enti?re ?galit? de droits et prerogatives". This provision was repeated in the special treaties of S?vres (1920) and then in the protocol of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). These treaties safeguarded the rights and the liberties of the non-Greek monastic communi ties in MA as follows: "La Gr?ce s'engage ? reconna?tre et maintenir les droits traditionnels et les libert?s, dont jouissent les communaut?s monastiques non grecques du Mont Athos d'apr?s les dispositions de l'article 62 du trait? de Berlin du 13 juillet 1878". The same provision has been repeated in the Legislative Decree of 29.9/30.10.1923 "On the Protection of Minorities in Greece", article 13. III. Because a lot of provisions of the MA law are opposite to the principles of the European Union (for example the clausura to women, the special license in order to visit the peninsula, the taxation and customs privileges etc.), Joint Declaration n? 4 concerns MA was included in the Final Act (1979) of the Agreement concerning the accession of the Hellenic Republic in the European Economic Community, now-a days European Union. According to this Declaration, recognizing that the special status granted to MA, as guaranteed by the Greek Constitution, is justified exclusively on grounds of a spiritual and religious nature, the Community will ensure that this status is taken into account in the application and subsequent preparation of pro visions of Community law, in particular in relation to customs franchise privileges, tax exemptions, and the right of establishment. .

Defence date: 17 December 2018
Examining Board: Professor Claire Kilpatrick, EUI (EUI Supervisor); Professor Ruth Rubio, EUI; Professor Kees Waaldijk, Leiden University; Professor Iyiola Solanke, University of Leeds
In Europe, the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) develop influence that transcends the particular case at hand. While this development has been criticised by progressive scholars, this thesis argues that it also enables civil society to participate in judicial decision making processes. In the context of Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transgender (LGBT) rights, this thesis investigates whether "strategic litigation" before the European High Courts can be a feasible and emancipatory endeavor. The concept of "strategic litigation" - developing long-term litigation strategies in order to induce legal, social and/or political reform - is based on the recognition that adjudication is, to a large extent, a political process. To this end, strategic litigation as a (political) strategy is introduced and positioned within legal theory and the literature on "cause lawyering." Within Europe, this thesis focuses on the ECtHR and the CJEU as potential fora for strategic litigation. In order to assess their case law from an activist point of view, a "strategic litigation opportunities" framework is designed. This framework both illuminates indicators for activist intervention, and highlights the agency of LGBT rights advocates in litigation. By doing so, it challenges the view of adjudication as a purely “top-down” process. Lastly, a case study on the US LGBT rights movement, and the effective strategic litigation on (same-sex) marriage equality it has engaged in, serves as an example for the successful application of a long-term cause lawyering approach. Ultimately, this thesis will conclude that strategic LGBT rights litigation at the European High Courts can, indeed, be a feasible and emancipatory endeavour, by establishing: 1) European High Courts exert quasi-legislative power. 2) European High Courts provide procedural spaces for activist LGBT rights lawyers. 3) The European High Courts’ case law can be analysed and utilised in a progressive LGBT-rights enhancing way.
One Chapter of the PhD thesis draws upon an earlier version published as an article 'Jenseits der Kernfamilie 'funktionale Elternschaft', eine progressive Alternative aus den USA' (2010) in the journal ‘Juridikum
One chapter of the PhD thesis draws upon an earlier version published as chapter 'Activating the courtroom for same-sex family rights : windows of opportunity for strategic litigation before the European Court of human rights (ECtHR)' (2014) in the book ‘Rights on the move : rainbow families in Europe : proceedings of the conference : Trento, 16-17 October 2014’

Award date: 7 December 1999
Supervisor: Prof. Y. Kravaritou
First made available online on 16 December 2019
The traffic in women for the purpose of sexual exploitation has occurred throughout history and is not a new phenomenon to Europe. Indeed, in the sixth century BC, Solon of Athens is reputed to have conscripted slaves to serve as prostitutes in brothels. For almost a century international instruments have been in force with the specific aim of eliminating this pernicious activity. That efforts to put a halt to trafficking began in earnest at the dawn of the twentieth century, the century when human rights and respect for the individual blossomed, seems fitting. Yet, strangely, it is in the last decade of this century that the Member States of the European Union have witnessed an upsurge in trafficking. Far from eliminating the trade in women, it is the abuse of women and girls which has grown to alarming proportions.

Defence date: 23 May 2012
Examining Board: Professor Adrienne Heritier (EUI/RSCAS) (Supervisor); Professor Lisa Conant (Univ. Denver); Professor Bruno De Witte (formely EUI/Univ. Maastricht); Professor Daniel Sabbagh (CERI, Sciences Po, Paris).
First made available online on 7 November 2019
Ten years after its enthusiastic adoption in 2000, the Race Equality Directive (RED) - a deeply innovative and indeed overall far-reaching piece of equal treatment legislation – seems to be still little enforced at the level of European courts. Why? Neither a sudden retrenchment of race discrimination in Europe, nor the inaptitude of the policy to generate European Union (EU)-law litigation, can easily explain the scarce signs of the extensive judicial enforcement that characterise other EU equal treatment policies, such as those on EU-nationality, gender and age. This study zooms in on the realm of domestic politics and judicial enforcement to inquire into cross-sectional and cross-national variations in the implementation of EU equal treatment policy. To do so, I rely upon analytical tools developed by three branches of EU studies scholarship — Europeanization, compliance and judicial politics literature — and I apply them to the yet unexplored domain of race equality policy. Tracing the process of transposition, in the first place, and analysing case law databases and expert interviews with legal practitioners, in the second place, I inquire into compliance and judicial enforcement in three EU countries: France, Germany and Italy. The findings of this comparative study confirm a very limited judicial enforcement of the RED, especially as domestic patterns of adversarial litigation in the domain of race equality are concerned. I explain this divergence looking at the ‗containment‘ action that domestic policymakers may exert on directives at the moment of transposition. In the case of the RED, this action crucially impinged on aspects likely to determine enforcement dynamics, such as those elements of the process regulating access to judicial redress. This work shows that in the case of a policy measure such as the RED, focused on individual judicial redress and mainly targeted towards disadvantaged end-users, the harmonization of some process elements is crucial to determining converging implementation dynamics. If Europeanization is contained at the moment of transposition, judicial enforcement can be seriously hindered at the national as well as the supranational levels even in presence of domestic legal mobilization. In addition to that, the thesis shows how limited raceconsciousness is to be found in contemporary European jurisprudence as well as in the claims filed by antidiscrimination law applicants.