In the case of X and X v. Belgium, the European Court of Justice has ruled that EU Member States’ embassies and consulates do not have an obligation to grant so-called “humanitarian visas” to people who claim to be in danger of being persecuted in their countries of origin. With this decision, the Court has overruled the legal opinion issued by its Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi.
Fear of the consequences of uncontrolled mass immigration was one of the main reasons for Americans to elect Donald Trump as their new President, and for Brits to vote for Brexit.
But Paolo Mengozzi, an Advocate General at the European Court of Justice, knows better. In the opinion he delivered to the Court in the case of X and X v. Belgium — which could be reflected in the Court’s final ruling — he found that EU countries “must issue a visa” in cases where refusing one would place someone “at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.” Continue reading
It has been announced that on 14 March the General Court of the EU will hear the case of “One of Us v. the European Commission”, which the pro-life European Citizens’ Initiative “One of Us” has brought against the European Commission in view of the Commission’s failure to provide an adequate response to the 2 million citizens who have requested that legislation be proposed and enacted to prevent EU taxpayers’ money to be spent on the murdering of children befor birth. Continue reading
The Romanian Constitutional Court has announced that it will refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the case of a same-sex couple who wish to be recognised as spouses in Romania.
The Constitutional Court will seek clarification on whether a same-sex couple, “married” in Belgium, is entitled to be recognised as “spouses” in Romania by way of application of the EU Directive on family reunification with a EU citizen. Continue reading
In the judgement it delivered today in the case of David L. Parris v. Trinity College Dublin, the CJEU has (once more) confirmed that:
‘The Member States are … free to provide or not provide for marriage for persons of the same sex, or an alternative form of legal recognition of their relationship, and, if they do so provide, to lay down the date from which such a marriage or alternative form is to have effect.“
As a matter of consequence, it found that the fact that Dublin’s Trinity College does not provide for a widower’s pension for the surviving part of a same-sex couple living in a registered “civil partnership” concluded in the UK is not a “discrimination” on the grounds of sexual orientation and/or age.
In a judgment released today the Court of Justice has at last recognized what legal experts have been warning about for many years: the EU’s sweeping “anti-discrimination” legislation can easily be misused by quarrelsome litigants.
In today’s decision in the case of Nils-Johannes Kratzer v R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG (Case C-423/15), it is therefore clarified that law courts must verify whether a plaintiff has applied for a job because he was genuinely interested, or only for the purpose of making his application the basis of a vexatious lawsuit.
Mr. Kratzer claimed to have been the victim of “age discrimination”. The CJEU’s judgment can however apply to all kinds of discrimination claims, including those based on alleged discrimination on grounds of “gender” or “sexual orientation”.
Following our recent post on ILGA-Europe’s strategy against the pro-family and pro-marriage citizens’ initiative “Mum Dad & Kids”, we have now received information confirming that one important part of this strategy has indeed been implemented … and failed.
As it appears from a notice published on the website of the Court of Justice of the EU, the Court has received an application requesting the annulment of the European Commission’s decision to register “Mum Dad & Kids”, but has declared it “manifestly inadmissible”. Continue reading