Arenz, Röder and Dagmar v. Germany

Arenz, Röder and Dagmar v. Germany (Communication No. 1138/2002) was a case decided by the UN Human Rights Committee in 2004.

Facts

In 1991, the Christian Democratic Union declared affiliation with Scientology incompatible with CDU membership. In 1992 and 1994, the applicants were expelled from CDU. Party decisions were upheld by German courts (Para. 2.-3. of the views).

The applicants alleged violations of their rights under articles 2, paragraph 1 (non-discrimination), 18 (freedom of religion), 19 (freedom of expression), 22 (freedom of association), 25 (political participation), 26 (non-discrimination) and 27 (minority rights) of the Covenant (Para. 4.).

HRC views

The committee has rejected Germany's objections that the case was inadmissible due to decisions being taken by a party, not by state (Para. 8.5.).

However, it decided that "8.6. (..) The issue before the Committee is whether the State party violated the authors' rights under the Covenant in that its courts gave priority to the principle of party autonomy, over their wish to be members in a political party that did not accept them due to their membership in another organization of ideological nature. The Committee recalls its constant jurisprudence that it is not a fourth instance competent to reevaluate findings of fact or reevaluate the application of domestic legislation, unless it can be ascertained that the proceedings before the domestic courts were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. (..) the authors have failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that the conduct of the courts of the State party would have amounted to arbitrariness or a denial of justice. Therefore, the communication is inadmissible"

gollark: > “We thought my poor grandmother’s remains had been buried in accordance with her wishes,” growls Elizabeth’s direct descendant, Catherine Gratwick. “Can’t you let her rest in peace? This is her body that you’re messing with. You can’t just irradiate and poison her; you must ask me first! How would you like it if your family’s remains were exhumed and mutilated? You must never use cells from deceased people without the explicit pre-mortem consent of the patient or their relatives. As for granny - I insist that all remaining samples of her be buried, and that you financially compensate her family for the pain and grief you have caused!”
gollark: > Two generations ago, scientists took a biopsy of a tumor from a cancer patient named Elizabeth Gratwick, who died soon after. Without her knowledge or consent, these cells were preserved in the laboratory and proved to be exceptionally stable in replication. As stable cancer cell lines are highly useful for medical research, “ElGr cells” have been sent to and used by scientists all over the world. However, objections are now being raised by Elizabeth’s descendants.
gollark: Now I need to answer a question!
gollark: And top 1% for crime.
gollark: * 0.8%


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.