BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 58369/10 - CLIN [2012] ECHR 1898 (10 July 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1898.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 1898 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 154
July 2012
Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 58369/10
Decision 10.7.2012 [Section III]
Article 14
Discrimination
Judicial decision requiring the State to take steps to oblige a highly traditional protestant political party to open its lists of candidates for election to representative bodies to women: inadmissible
Facts - The applicant party professed the absolute authority of the Word of God over all areas of societal life. It rejected the idea of absolute equality of human beings. In essence, it believed that, although all human beings were of equal value as God’s creatures, differences in nature, talents and place in society had to be recognised. Men and women had different roles in society. Thus, women were not inferior to men as human beings; but, unlike men, women should not be eligible for public office. After the rulings of the regional court in the civil proceedings brought against it by several associations and organisations, the applicant party amended its Principles to admit women members, though still without allowing them to stand for election to public office. In 2010 the Supreme Court found the way in which the applicant party put its convictions into practice in nominating candidates for election to general representative bodies unacceptable. It stated further that the State was wrong to take the position that its own balancing exercise entitled it not to take any measures against this practice. The Standing Parliamentary Committee for the Interior of the Lower House of Parliament then decided to await the outcome of the proceedings before the Court before deciding whether to take any action.
Law - Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The Court reiterated that democracy was the only political model contemplated in the Convention and the only one compatible with it. Moreover, the advancement of the equality of the sexes in the member States prevented the State from lending its support to views of the man’s role as primordial and the woman’s as secondary. The fact that no woman had expressed the wish to stand for election as a candidate for the applicant party was not decisive. It made little difference whether or not the denial of a fundamental political right based solely on gender was stated explicitly in the applicant party’s bye-laws or in any other of the applicant party’s internal documents, given that it was publicly espoused and followed in practice. The applicants party’s position was unacceptable regardless of the deeply-held religious conviction on which it was based.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
