Employees of state hospitals in Hamburg were granted the right in 1995 to continued employment in case of privatization of the hospitals. In 2000, the cleaning staff were spun off into a separate company which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state hospitals. Upon privatization in 2005, the right to continued employment was applied only to those employees employed by the state hospitals, not those employed by the wholly-owned subsidiary company.
The Court held that it was in breach of the right to equal treatment enshrined in the German constitution that periods of maternity leave (which affects women only) were not counted towards certain pension benefits whereas periods of sick leave (which affects both men and women) were. English translation of 1 BvR 1409/10 available here.)
The lower court issued an expedited injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner filed, inter alia, a constitutional complaint appealing the injunction, which prohibited him from approaching or contacting his partner and from re-entering the flat he shared with her to protect her from his domestic violence. The Court did not allow the constitutional complaint, inter alia, on the grounds that the injunction did not breach the complainant’s constitutional rights.
The Court held that it was unconstitutional to require an attorney without earnings to continue to make compulsory pension contributions during time taken off to care for children (up to the age of three years). The Court found that requiring such compulsory pension contributions was a breach of the right to equal treatment enshrined in the German constitution because it disproportionately affected women, who are the parent taking time off to care for small children in the vast majority of cases.
Article 7(1) states that all citizens are equal before the law and prohibits sex-based privileges (among other factors). Article 7(2) states that the federal government and all federal states and municipalities affirm actual equality between women and men. It further stresses that measures to achieve factual equality between women and men are legal. Regarding job titles or academic titles, Article 7(3) requires that the gendered nouns in those titles reflect the gender of the respective holder are in accordance with law.
The local court denied the petitioner’s motion to certify the approval of her female partner to conduct in vitro fertilization with a third person’s semen. The regional court denied the appeal. It held that the wording of the Austrian Reproductive Medicine Act (FMedG) aims to exclude same-sex parenthood. The Supreme Court decided to bring this question to the attention of the Austrian Constitutional Court. The Austrian Constitutional Court decided that certain sections of the FMedG were unconstitutional.
The appellant, a 22-year-old Somali woman, applied to the Austrian government for asylum and international protection, stating that she was abducted by the Al-Shabaab Militia and her uncle arranged a forced marriage for her. Her application for asylum and international protection was rejected by the relevant asylum authorities and the Austrian Federal Administrative Court on the grounds that the reasons stated by the appellant were not credible, too vague, and contradictory.
The 90-year-old female appellant (an Iraqi national) applied to the Austrian government for asylum and international protection, stating that due to the war in Iraq, she feared for her life and for her family. She stated that she had been threatened by various battle groups. It appeared that the appellant was confined to a wheelchair and suffered from various illnesses including labyrinthine deafness, arterial hypertonia, kidney cysts, and dementia with behavioral disorder.
The appellant, a Somali girl, applied to the Austrian government for asylum and international protection due to her precarious situation in Yemen. The appellant’s family fled to Yemen when she was four years old because her family was discriminated against in Somalia due to their affiliation with a Madhibaan minority clan. The plaintiff’s brother and father were killed and no other family remained in Somalia. Further, female genital mutilation is a common practice in Somalia.
The female appellant, a civil servant of the Office of the Austrian Labor Market, applied for a position as head of the relevant regional office with three other male candidates. One of the men was chosen for the position. The plaintiff claimed that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of sex, among other reasons, because she was equally qualified for the position and the interviewer asked her why women could not find fulfilment in educating children during the application process.
