Europe

This legislation introduces the concept of “domestic violence,” which is defined as act (or omission) of physical, sexual, psychological, or economic violence (intentional deprivation of housing, food, clothing, other property, funds or documents or the ability to use them; leaving without care; hampering the receipt of necessary treatment or rehabilitation services; prohibition of, or compulsion to, work; prohibition of studies; and other offenses of an economic nature) committed within a family or between relatives, or between spouses or ex-spouses, former or current spouses, or other per

The law's purpose is to ensure equal opportunities for the realization of human and civil rights and freedoms. The law defines “discrimination” as a situation in which an individual or a group of individuals suffers from the restriction of the recognition, exercise, or enjoyment of rights and freedoms in any form established in this Law based on sex or on other grounds (“particular grounds”), except for cases when such restriction has a legitimate, reasonably justified aim, which is achievable in an appropriate and necessary way.

This act regulates the procedure of creation and operation of political parties. It requires a 30% gender quota for all party lists. (i.e., the minimum percentage of men and women in the list). It also entitled political parties to ideological, organizational, and material support for the creation of women's and other associations of citizens. If a political party violates citizens' equality based on their gender or other grounds, the authorized central body of the executive power should immediately file an administrative lawsuit requesting that the court ban the political party.

The applicant was registered as a boy at birth in Ukraine, with a male name. Throughout the decision, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) referred to the applicant with male pronouns with which the applicant does not identify. This summary will use female pronouns in line with the applicant’s identity. According to the applicant, she never identified with the assigned male gender.

In this case, the company (the claimant) was fined for placing outdoor advertising on a billboard that contained an image of a woman's naked body.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to establish direct discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff filled out a form to be a candidate for party membership in accordance with the prescribed procedure . A little later, in private correspondence with the deputy chairman of the party, the plaintiff was denied membership in the party on the grounds of his sexual orientation.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, his ex-wife, to exclude him from the child's birth certificate and to terminate his child support payments. According to the plaintiff, there was no blood relationship between him and the child. The court ordered a genetic examination was ordered to establish paternity. However, the defendant refused to conduct it and evaded taking biological samples from the child.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, one of the Ukrainian enterprises, for gender discrimination, refusal to hire, forced hiring, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism, and non-pecuniary damage. The plaintiff argued that his labor rights were violated because the job advertisement required only female candidates, which, in his opinion, constituted discrimination. He also noted that after sending his resume and documents, he did not receive a response, which forced him to seek medical treatment for mental anguish.

A woman (the plaintiff) filed a lawsuit to recognize her dismissal as illegal, reinstate her her employment, and recover non-pecuniary damage in the amount of UAH 50,000. The plaintiff’s claim was based on the fact that the director of the company where she worked issued an illegal order to dismiss her when he learned that the plaintiff was pregnant. This decision was due to the fact that the company was obligated to provide the plaintiff with paid maternity leave in the near future.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Kyiv City Court against the defendant, the State Enforcement Service of Ukraine, to declare the order on his dismissal and reinstatement unlawful. The plaintiff argued that his dismissal was unlawful because he was not offered another position (as required by law in the event of a legal entity reorganization) and was dismissed during his social leave for childcare.