The plaintiff brought an action against the Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (literally translated: Pension Insurance Institution) claiming a higher pension, arguing that the implementation of an adjustment factor for pensions, established in 2008, resulted in indirect discrimination against women who were disproportionately less likely to qualify for an exceptional pension increase.
The Court found a law that only required men, and not women, to serve as firefighters, or alternatively, required men to pay a fire service levy, was discriminatory and violated the ECHR.
Der Gerichtshof stellte fest, dass ein Gesetz, das nur Männer und nicht Frauen zum Feuerwehrdienst verpflichtete bzw. von Männern die Zahlung einer Feuerwehrgebühr verlangte, diskriminierend war und gegen die EMRK verstieß.
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 decedent’s husband shot and killed her in front of their two daughters in 2002. Before her death, the decedent had obtained three expulsion and prohibition-to-return orders against her husband in response to repeated episodes of domestic violence. The Vienna Public Prosecutor denied police requests to detain the decedent’s husband, and stopped the prosecution against him on the basis of insufficient grounds two days before the murder. Police reports show that the law enforcement failed to respond in a timely fashion to the dispute that resulted in the decedent’s murder.
The plaintiff, an unmarried father, took off six months from work to take care of the child while the child’s mother was working for which he demanded “maternity” leave payments for from the defendant, the relevant sickness fund. The defendant refused to pay. The German lower social court decided that the legislation only permitted maternity leave and not paternity leave. On appeal, the German state social court involved the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) in order to interpret Directive 76/207 with respect to the raised issue.
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 plaintiff was employed as a waitress with Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner, and was terminated while undergoing in vitro fertilization (“IVF”). She then filed suit to recover payment of her salary, claiming the termination was invalid under the Maternity Protection Act. She argued that from the date of her IVF treatment (two days before termination of her employment) she was entitled to national legislative protections against dismissal.
The applicant, a Nigerian woman, fled to avoid female genital mutilation (“FGM”) and sought asylum in Austria. Austria rejected her application for asylum and she appealed, arguing under Article 3 of the Convention that she ran the risk of being forced to undergo FGM if she expelled to Nigeria. The Federal Asylum Office and the Asylum Court rejected her application. They reasoned that she could have sought the state’s protection and due to her age (she was born in 1973), education, and work experience she should have been able to live safely in other parts of Nigeria on her own.
The plaintiff in the original proceeding was employed as chief physician for defendant, a pension insurance institution. She was terminated pursuant to a policy requiring termination of all employees, both men and women, upon reaching the age at which they could draw a public retirement pension (in the case of plaintiff: 60 years of age). The plaintiff argued that the termination policy was discriminatory because, under the pension statute, women were able to draw a pension at an age five years younger than men; thus, requiring their termination five years earlier.
