Últimas tendencias de un modelo de protección antidiscriminatoria en constante evoluciónel caso J.D. y A. contra Reino Unido.

  1. Hernández Llinás, Laura 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Journal:
Anales de derecho

ISSN: 0210-539X

Year of publication: 2020

Issue Title: El TEDH en su sesenta aniversario

Issue: 1

Type: Article

DOI: 10.6018/ANALESDERECHO.452751 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Anales de derecho

Abstract

The main purpose of this essay is to analyse the judgement recently delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in J.D. and A. versus United Kingdom case. This case enables us to highlight some strengths and weaknesses of the Court’s non-discrimination case-law, as well as to draw attention to a new protective approach that the Court takes when it comes to remedy the effects of discrimination by undifferentiation, an always controversial issue. Given the arrival of an increasing number of cases related to article 14 CEDH and the Court’s broader interpretation of such article within the last decade, taking a closer look to its case-law on the matter seems to be of interest to study the development of common standards on the protection of human rights within the Council of Europe.

Bibliographic References

  • Arnardóttir, O. M. “Vulnerability under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights”, Oslo Law Review, 4(03), 2017, pp. 150-171.
  • Barnes, C. “Capire il «Modello Sociale della Disabilità»”, Intersticios. Revista sociológica de pensamiento crítico, 2(1), 2008, pp. 87-96.
  • Baker, A. “The enjoyment of rights and freedoms: a new conception of the ‘ambit’under Article 14 ECHR”, The Modern Law Review, 69(5), 2006, pp.714-737.
  • Broderick, A. “A reflection on substantive equality jurisprudence: The standard of scrutiny at the ECtHR for differential treatment of Roma and persons with disabilities”, International Journal of discrimination and the Law, 15(1-2), 2015, pp. 101-122.
  • Cartabia, M. “The European Court of Human Rights: judging nondiscrimination”, International journal of constitutional law, 9(3-4), 2011, pp. 808-814.
  • Cobreros Mendazona, E. “Discriminación por indiferenciación: estudio y propuesta”, Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 2007 pp. 71-114.
  • Crossley, M. “Reasonable Accommodation as Part and Parcel of the Antidiscrimination Project”, Rutgers LJ, 35, 2003.
  • Danisi, C. “How far can the European Court of Human Rights go in the fight against discrimination? Defining new standards in its nondiscrimination jurisprudence.” International Journal of Constitutional Law, 9(3-4), 2011, pp. 793-807.
  • Ferri, D. “Reasonable accommodation as a gateway to the equal enjoyment of human rights: from New York to Strasbourg”, Social Inclusion, 6(1), 2018, pp. 40-50.
  • Ferri, D. “L'accomodamento ragionevole per le persone con disabilità in Europa: da Transatlantic Borrowing alla Cross-Fertilization”, Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo, 19(2), 2017, pp. 381-420.
  • Fernández Segado, F. “El principio de igualdad en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos.” El principio de igualdad en la Constitución española: XI Jornadas de Estudio. Vol. 1, 1991, 777-836.
  • Fredman, S. “Emerging from the shadows: Substantive equality and article 14 of the European convention on human rights”, Human Rights Law Review, 16(2), 2016, pp. 273-301.
  • Gerards, J. “The discrimination grounds of article 14 of the European convention on Human Rights”, Human Rights Law Review, 13(1), 2013, pp. 99-124.
  • Giacomelli, L. Ripensare l'eguaglianza. Effetti collaterali della tutela antidiscriminatoria, Giappichelli. 2018.
  • Hunter, R. C., & Shoben, E. W. “Disparate impact discrimination: american oddity or internationally accepted concept?”, Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labour Law. 19, 1998, pp. 108 - 152.
  • Itxaso Elósegui, M. “El concepto jurisprudencial de acomodamiento razonable: el Tribunal Supremo de Canadá y el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos ante la gestión de la diversidad cultural y religiosa en el espacio público.” Anuario de filosofía del derecho, (30), 2014, pp. 69-96.
  • Karlan, P. S., & Rutherglen, G. “Disabilities, discrimination, and reasonable accommodation”, Duke Law Journal. 46, 1996, pp. 1-41.
  • Kennedy, R. “Persuasion and distrust: A comment on the affirmative action debate”, Harvard Law Review, 99, 1985, pp. 1327-1346.
  • Madinabeitia Deop, X. “De la igualdad en los derechos a la igualdad de derechos. El Protocolo adicional Nº 12 al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos”, Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional, vol. 16, 2000, pp. 367-376.
  • O’connell, R. “Cinderella comes to the Ball: Art 14 and the right to non-discrimination in the ECHR”, Legal Studies, vol. 29 No. 2, 2009, pp. 211–229.
  • Palacios, A. El modelo social de discapacidad: orígenes, caracterización y plasmación la Convención Internacional sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad, CERMI. 2008.
  • Peroni, L., & Timmer, A. “Vulnerable groups: The promise of an emerging concept in European Human Rights Convention law”, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(4), 2013, pp. 1056-1085.
  • Rey Martínez, F. “La discriminación racial en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos”. Pensamiento Constitucional, 17(17), 2012, pp. 291-319.
  • Strauss, D. A. “The myth of colorblindness”, The Supreme Court Review, 1986, pp. 99-134.
  • Wildhaber, L. “Protection against Discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights. A Second-Class Guarantee?”, Baltic Yearbook of International Law Online, 2(1), 2002, pp. 71-82.
Data source: Dialnet