The Italian Surname Saga

On May 31, 2022, the Italian Constitutional Court (ICC) finally rendered its much-awaited decision (ICC, decision no. 131/2022) about domestic legislation on surname attribution. The judgment deserves closer attention for two main reasons. Next to fostering gender equality, it also exemplifies the new role of the ICC within the Italian constitutional order.

All Eyes on LGBTQI Rights

In Fedotova v Russia, the ECtHR found that Russia overstepped the boundaries of its otherwise broad margin of appreciation because it had “no legal framework capable of protecting the applicants’ relationships as same-sex couples has been available under domestic law”. The case foreshadows a future wherein the familiar line of cases advancing the protection of same sex couples will need to be complemented by a jurisprudence that engages with the backslash against LGBTQI rights.

Will Russia Yield to the ECtHR?

On 13 July 2021, the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment in Fedotova and Others v. Russia, a case which concerned the lack of legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the Russian legal system. The judges found the Russian laws to be in violation of Article 8 – the right to respect for private and family life and Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination. However, it is highly unlikely that Russia will enforce the judgment.

Call Me by Mum’s Name

In a recent decision, the Italian Constitutional Court took up the question of the choice of surname for newborns. In the absence of legislative reforms, it has tried to adapt the Italian legal framework, which still adheres to traditional naming practices, to constitutional and international standards of equality. This step shows the Court’s intention to counter the Parliament’s inertia on the issue.

Defining the Modern Family

In November 2020, the Constitutional Court of Latvia recognised that the Constitution of Latvia (Satversme) obliges the state to protect all families, including those established by same-sex couples. The judgement was met with considerable political backlash and at the beginning of January prompted the right‑wing party Nacionālā Apvienība to submit an initiative to amend the Satversme with a new, excluding definition of family. Perhaps more worrisome is how the amendment and the associated campaign openly attack the authority of the Constitutional Court.

Symbolpolitik ohne Kollateralschäden?

Unter dem Banner „Kinderrechte ins Grundgesetz“ hat die große Koalition am Montagabend einen Kompromissentwurf zur Verankerung von Kinderrechten in der Verfassung präsentiert. Obwohl es sich bei dem Vorschlag – Satz für Satz betrachtet – um reine Symbolpolitik handelt und ein Eingriff in das sensible verfassungsrechtliche Beziehungsgefüge zwischen Eltern, Kind und Staat von der Koalition auch ausdrücklich nicht intendiert ist, könnte er in dieser Form ungewollte verfassungsrechtliche Kollateralschäden nach sich ziehen.

Muss der Staat die künstliche Fortpflanzung verbieten?

Das deutsche Fortpflanzungsmedizinrecht befindet sich in einem geradezu erbärmlichen Zustand: Das aus dem Jahr 1990 stammende Embryonenschutzgesetz (ESchG) ist – auch im Hinblick auf den medizinischen Fortschritt – veraltet, als Strafgesetz von repressivem Charakter und in Teilen verfassungsrechtlich nicht haltbar. Politik und Gesetzgeber weigern sich beharrlich, dem dringenden Desiderat nach einem modernen, dem Stand der Medizin angemessenen Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz Rechnung zu tragen.

Women, Rape Law and the Illusory Sex Equality Clause in the Bangladeshi Constitution

Earlier in October, a video of a group of men attacking, stripping, and sexually assaulting a woman went viral in Bangladesh. Incidents of rape and sexual assaults like this are a window into understanding the state of  sex-based inequality in a given society. The laws, however, must be taken into account as well, particularly if they reflect an essential male perspective and are written in gender-insensitive terms. I will explain below that in case of Bangladesh,  sex-based inequality gets revealed when an illusory  sex-equality clause of Bangladesh Constitution intersects with the country’s crippled commitment to the Women Convention, and sex-based inequality gets manifested through the retention of colonial-era substantive and procedural legal framework.

Mitgemeint

Das Bundesjustizministerium hat einen Referentenentwurf zur „Fortentwicklung des Sanierungs- und Insolvenzrechts (SanInsFoG)“ im generischen Femininum formuliert. Das führt zu veritablem Zoff in der Koalition. Das Bundesinnenministerium hat den Entwurf offenbar sogleich gestoppt, „aus verfassungsrechtlichen Gründen“: Ein Gesetzentwurf "in ausschließlich weiblicher Begriffsform" gelte rechtlich gesehen möglicherweise nur für Frauen. Seufz. Wer sagt es ihnen?