Intensity of judicial review in equal treatment cases

See E., Belgian Linguistics case, Series A, Vol. 6, para. 10 and, more specifically, ECHR 18 January 1978,Ireland v. UK (IRA case), Series A, 25, (1968)

Human Rights in the World, pp. 84-85, (1982)

Scharwuanaeusach and News Verlagsgesellschaft, not yet reported, with respect to the freedom of expression (para. 29). A recent example of the application of a strict test with respect to the equality principle may be found in ECHR 30 September 2003, Koua Poirrez, (2003)

L&V v. UK, not yet reported, para. 52. 15. See, e.g., ECHR 29 April 1999, Chassagnou, Reports (1999-III) para. 117 (though the Court did not formally apply the strict very weighty reasons test in this case, it clearly opted for a rather strict test), ECHR 3 October 2000, Camp and Bourimi, Reports (2000-X) para. 41, ECHR 11 October 2001,Sahin, not reported, para. 60 and ECHR 24 July 2003, Karner, (2003)

Petrovic, Reports (1998–11) and ECHR 26 February 2002, Frette, Reports, (1998)

James and Others, Series A, Vol. 98, in which the Court stated that 'the availability of other solutions does not in itself render the. [contested] legislation unjustified. It is not for the Court to say whether the legislation represented the best solution for dealing with the problem of whether the legislative discretion should have been exercised in another way’ (para. 51). With respect to Art. 14, the Court mostly does not even pay explicit attention to the justification when applying a mar

often, it confines itself to stating something like the following: 'While discrimination may arise where States without an objective and reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different., the Court does not find, in the circumstances of this case, any lack of objective and reasonable justification for the measures taken against this applicant’ (ECHR 18 January 2001,Jane Smith, (1986)

Kokkinakis, Series A, 260, (1993)

Chapman, pp. 90-94, (2001)

See E., Sunday Times (I), Series A, Vol. 30, para. 59. 23. See C. Barnard, The Economic Objectives of Article 119’, in T. Hervey and D. O’Keeffe, Sex Equality Law in the European Union, pp. 322-327, (1979)

See E., Belgian Linguistics case, Series A, Vol. 6, para. 10 and, more specifically, ECHR 18 January 1978,Ireland v. UK (IRA case), Series A, 25, (1968)

Human Rights in the World, pp. 84-85, (1982)

Scharwuanaeusach and News Verlagsgesellschaft, not yet reported, with respect to the freedom of expression (para. 29). A recent example of the application of a strict test with respect to the equality principle may be found in ECHR 30 September 2003, Koua Poirrez, (2003)

L&V v. UK, not yet reported, para. 52. 15. See, e.g., ECHR 29 April 1999, Chassagnou, Reports (1999-III) para. 117 (though the Court did not formally apply the strict very weighty reasons test in this case, it clearly opted for a rather strict test), ECHR 3 October 2000, Camp and Bourimi, Reports (2000-X) para. 41, ECHR 11 October 2001,Sahin, not reported, para. 60 and ECHR 24 July 2003, Karner, (2003)

Petrovic, Reports (1998–11) and ECHR 26 February 2002, Frette, Reports, (1998)

James and Others, Series A, Vol. 98, in which the Court stated that 'the availability of other solutions does not in itself render the. [contested] legislation unjustified. It is not for the Court to say whether the legislation represented the best solution for dealing with the problem of whether the legislative discretion should have been exercised in another way’ (para. 51). With respect to Art. 14, the Court mostly does not even pay explicit attention to the justification when applying a mar

often, it confines itself to stating something like the following: 'While discrimination may arise where States without an objective and reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different., the Court does not find, in the circumstances of this case, any lack of objective and reasonable justification for the measures taken against this applicant’ (ECHR 18 January 2001,Jane Smith, (1986)

Kokkinakis, Series A, 260, (1993)

Chapman, pp. 90-94, (2001)

See E., Sunday Times (I), Series A, Vol. 30, para. 59. 23. See C. Barnard, The Economic Objectives of Article 119’, in T. Hervey and D. O’Keeffe, Sex Equality Law in the European Union, pp. 322-327, (1979)