not only because of the resignation of Defence Minister Guttenberg. Most importantly, we are left in memory because the European Court of Justice has undertaken with explicit reference to the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted there as well, relying on the Equal Treatment Directive of the EU The insurers offer so-called unisex rates. Both events have to do the rest together. They are of the same school of jurists have been prepared and executed.
The verdict is not interested? Room. I know some lawyers who are inclined, under the impact of this ruling cast their habit. Or to emigrate. Or both. And also their fellow citizens to emigrate Tue belong hiermit.Ich I recommend it. And what this decision affects us, I will explain in more detail. The ruling means the final entry in a company which I have already referred to on this blog more often than neo-feudal. A company the chances are not on his talent and fitness awards, but according to personal characteristics, just "like" a feudal society. Seemingly without regard to the person but that is why, in respect of the person.
On first glance, it is purely a question of insurance law. Can insurance companies in insurance rates by gender differentiation? Now, for example, a pension for women more expensive. The reason is simple. Women live longer. You get no less for their money when they pay higher premiums, but as much as men who pay less but get less for it, namely, lower pensions for a shorter lifetime.
This result is not merely an actuarial mandatory, but the traditional constitutional doctrine, even necessary. Because the principle of equality of classical constitutions prohibits not only unequal treatment same facts but also the equal treatment of different situations. Unisex rates are around for a pension according to the classical understanding of "equality before the law" illegal because they are too expensive for men and for women too cheap. Men get in this tariff less for their money - because they live shorter - than women.
But the EU approach prohibits "discrimination" in the literal translation distinction. It may no longer be distinguished, because the distinction - a discrimination pleonastic.
What does this mean for the other case law can be guessed. The Charter of Fundamental Rights which prohibits inter alia discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation". With a ruling that the adoption rights granted lesbigay couples who not only civil, but possibly also religious marriage for homosexuals commands, is to be expected.
is because in that case also raised yet another paradigm shift. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is not about negative rights against state interference is obliged not primarily the state, but rather requires each individual citizen, every society, every institution. It would be only logical, forthcoming marriage sue for gay couples before the age of a Catholic church. In England, where Catholic teaching posts has offered to mediate and gay adoption children, where the Anglican state church should be obliged to offer in their churches wedding rituals for gays and lesbians, it's been so far.
We are now therefore on the threshold of a new age. There will be no less totalitarian than other periods of history.
0 comments:
Post a Comment