euro-letter
No. 80 			 				  June
2000

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European Region
of the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and Lesbian
International Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National Association for
Gays and Lesbians. Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld,
Lisbeth Andersen and Soeren Baatrup.  Contact to Euro-Letter:
<mailto:steff@...> <http://www.steffenjensen.dk/> Fax: +45 4049
5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033 0840 Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl.
Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V, Denmark  You can receive
Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to
<mailto:euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com> and from no 30 onwards the
Euro-Letters are available on the Internet at
<http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm> and at
<http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html>

In this issue
	 * COUNCIL OF EUROPE - LOBBYING CAMPAIGN FOR THE END JUNE
DEBATES IN THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY ON LESBIAN AND GAY ISSUES
	 * ADOPTION OF STEPCHILDREN IN GAY AND LESBIAN FAMILIES IN
ICELAND
	 * EU CHARTER ON HUMAN RIGHTS
	 * EQUAL PROGRAMME
	 * SPAIN - THREE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BILLS IN PARLIAMENT
	 * SPAIN - A BILL ON FAMILY REGROUPING FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES IN
CATALAN PARLIAMENT
	 * SOUTHERN SPAIN - ANDALUSIAN PARLIAMENT TO CONSIDER LEGAL
STATUS FOR DOMESTICPARTNERSHIPS
	 * CZECH REPUBLIC PLANS PARTNER LAW
	 * BELGIAN PARTNER LAW UNPOPULAR
	 * FRENCH PARTNER LAW POPULAR


Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
<http://www.ilga-europe.org/>
COUNCIL OF EUROPE - LOBBYING CAMPAIGN FOR THE END JUNE DEBATES IN THE
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY ON LESBIAN AND GAY ISSUES
By ILGA-Europe

On Friday 30th June the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will
debate two historic recommendations:

The first, entitled "SITUATION OF LESBIANS AND GAYS IN COUNCIL OF EUROPE
MEMBER STATES" calls on member states to take a number of positive actions,
including:
i. making sexual orientation a prohibited ground for discrimination,
ii. revoking all laws making homosexual acts between consenting adults
liable to criminal prosecution,
iii. equalising age of consent laws,
iv. ensuring equal treatment in employment,
v. adopting legislation which "foresees registered partnership".

It also calls for sexual orientation to be added to the grounds for
discrimination prohibited by the European Convention on Human Rights.

These recommendations are preceded by a hard-hitting preamble which includes
an attack on certain "politicians and religious leaders" who use homophobia
"to justify the continued existence of discriminatory laws and, above all,
aggressive or contemptuous attitudes."

The report that is the background for the recommendation can be found at
this web site:
<http://stars.coe.fr/doc/doc00/edoc8755.htm>

The second recommendation, entitled "SITUATION OF GAYS AND LESBIANS AND
THEIR PARTNERS IN RESPECT OF ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION IN THE MEMBER STATES OF
THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE" calls on member states to take a number of positive
actions, including:
i. Re-examining their asylum policies with a view to recognising as
refugees homosexuals persecuted on the basis of their sexual orientation,
ii.   Ensuring that bi-national lesbian and gay couples are accorded the
same residence rights as bi-national heterosexual couples.

The report that is the background for the recommendation can be found at
this web site: <http://stars.coe.fr/doc/doc00/edoc8654.htm>

The full text of the Recommendations, and of the accompanying Explanatory
Memoranda, can be found at the Council of Europe's website, from 27 June
2000


THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, IF SUCCESSFUL, WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENT
ON LGB RIGHTS BY THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS. It may well
be a similar period of time before the Assembly returns to this subject in
this detail. IT IS THEREFORE ESSENTIAL THAT EVERY EFFORT IS MADE TO ENSURE
THAT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE APPROVED AND NOT DILUTED BY HOSTILE
AMENDMENTS.

If successful, these Recommendations will represent a very important
declaration by delegations from the parliaments of the 41 member states of
the Council of Europe, and are likely to influence the governments of member
states.

A Recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly requires a majority of 66% to
be successful.  We know this will be difficult to achieve. The opponents of
lesbian, gay and bisexual rights at the Assembly are determined and
well-organised. It is therefore essential that we persuade parliamentarians
who support us to be present for the debate. This is all the more important,
since the debate is scheduled to take place on the Friday, when many
parliamentarians will already be returning from Strasbourg to their homes.

SO PLEASE WRITE A SHORT LETTER TO SUPPORTIVE MEMBERS OF YOUR NATIONAL
DELEGATION IMMEDIATELY. The names and addresses of the members of your
national delegation can be found at the following reference at the ILGA
World website:
<http://www.ilga.org/Current%20activities/europe/Council%20of%20Europe/counc
il_of_europe_.htm>

If you do not have information on which parliamentarians are supportive, we
recommend that you contact only parliamentarians from left of centre and
centre parties (these are shown separately in the list at the ILGA World
website).  We recommend that you do not contact right of centre politicians,
unless you know them to be supportive - contacting those who are hostile
could well be counter-productive.

When you write to the supportive members of your national delegation, we
suggest you make some of the following points:

a. Discrimination, and sometimes even violence, remain serious problems for
lesbians and gays, as is made clear in the Explanatory Memoranda which
accompany the two draft Recommendations.
b. The failure by so many countries to give legal recognition to same-sex
partnerships is a serious form of discrimination which can cause
considerable hardship for many couples.
c. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that discrimination based on
sexual orientation is a violation of the European Convention on Human
Rights.

Stress that the Recommendations, if passed, will be of historic importance
for Europe's lesbian, gay and bisexual communities, and present a rare
opportunity for parliamentarians to demonstrate their support for the
fundamental rights of our community.

Ask them to support the draft Recommendations, and to oppose any attempt to
weaken them.

Point out that the debates will take place on Friday 30th June, and ask that
they specifically arrange to remain in Strasbourg that day.

PLEASE ACT NOW!  THE SOONER YOU WRITE, THE BETTER THE CHANCE THAT MEMBERS OF
YOUR COUNTRY'S DELEGATION WOULD ARRANGE TO REMAIN IN STRASBOURG ON THE DAY
OF THE DEBATE.


Note on the background and history of the Council of Europe

The Council of Europe is Europe's main intergovernmental human rights
organisation. With some 41 member states, covering nearly 800 million
people, it has a most important role in promoting human rights.

The Council of Europe was founded in the aftermath of the second world war,
with the purpose of promoting respect for human rights in Europe, in the
hope of preventing any repetition of the atrocities of that time.

The Council of Europe has three main elements:

The Committee of Ministers: this consists of the Foreign Ministers of the 41
member states, and is the executive of the Council of Europe. It can make
Recommendations to the member states, although these recommendations are not
binding.

The Parliamentary Assembly: this consists of delegates from the national
parliaments of the member states.  There are approximately 300
Representatives, each of whom has a deputy. The delegations of individual
countries depends on the population of those countries: the largest
countries have eighteen representatives. The Parliamentary Assembly can make
Recommendations to the Committee of Ministers.  If the Committee of
Ministers does not support such a Recommendation, then it is merely passed
to the governments of member states for information. Nonetheless, such
Recommendations are of considerable symbolic importance.

The European Court of Human Rights: this consists of one judge from each of
the 41 member states.  It rules on whether individual member states have
violated the European Convention on Human Rights. Its judgements are binding
on the member states.


ADOPTION OF STEPCHILDREN IN GAY AND LESBIAN FAMILIES IN ICELAND
By SAMTÖKIN '78

On 8 May 2000 the Althingi, Iceland's long-established parliament, passed an
amendment to the 1996 legislation permitting registered partnerships which
have greatly improved the legal rights of lesbian and gay families. The new
laws are similar to those passed by the Danish parliament in the spring of
1999 and allow Norwegian, Swedish and Danish citizens resident in Iceland to
enter into registered partnerships or to enjoy the same legal status in
Iceland as would be granted them under registered partnership in their own
country. Other foreigners can enter a registered partnership if they have
been resident in Iceland for two years, even if they are not Icelandic
citizens.

What attracted most attention, however, was an amendment put forth by the
General Committee of parliament that allows a person in registered
partnership to adopt the child of his or her partner, insofar as the child's
other parent does not have custody claims. Iceland thus becomes the second
country in the world, after Denmark, to make such an improvement in
legislation to ensure the rights of children growing up in gay and lesbian
families. In the last four years Iceland has become one of the world's
leading countries in recognising the rights of lesbians and gays: In 1996
parliament passed a law on registered partnerships and the year after
amendments were made to the criminal code to ensure the rights of
homosexuals.

Out of 63 parliamentarians, 49 supported the adoption amendment, three
abstained and only one opposed the amendment. Ten members were absent.

Objections were heard from outside parliament, mainly from Christian
fundamentalists who conducted a vocal media campaign in an attempt to stop
the passing of the amendment. The so-called "Campaign for the Protection of
Children", composed mostly of people from fundamentalist churches, sent in a
petition signed by 1050 people, about 0.4% of the population which numbers
only 280.000.

"The determination and acuity of the small movement of lesbians and gays in
Iceland has led to a miracle in the last two decades," said Mr. Thorvaldur
Kristinsson, spokesman of the Lesbian and Gay Association of Iceland. "It is
rewarding to not that a recent Gallup poll shows that two thirds of
Icelanders find nothing wrong in lesbians and gays taking responsibility for
adopting children. This is a nation that only twenty years ago was so
prejudiced that homosexuals were forced to immigrate abroad. But our society
is small and messages travel fast. Through cogent arguments we have reached
the people of this country."


EU CHARTER ON HUMAN RIGHTS
By Nigel Warner

On 4th June the Praesidium issued their proposal for a revised draft of the
human rights articles (1 - 30), which take account of proposed amendments.

The anti-discrimination clause still includes sexual orientation:

"Article 22
1. Any discrimination based on aspects such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or
social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or
any other opinion, association with a national minority, property, birth,
disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."

The clause on marriage and founding a family has been made totally
ineffectual, in that it simply says that this is a matter for national law.
It now reads:

"Article 13
Right to marry and to found a family
The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in
accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right."

I suppose this was inevitable, as the national governments will not want to
pass control of issues such as the definition of marriage, and parenting, to
the EU.


EQUAL PROGRAMME
By ILGA-Europe

The Commission's communication to Member States establishing the guidelines
for the Community initiative EQUAL (transnational cooperation for the
promotion of new practices to fight against discrimination and inequality of
any kind in relation to the labour market) was published in the Official
Journal of the European Union, C 127 of 5 May 2000.
<http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2000/c_127/c_12720000505en00020010.pdf>

It explains in detail the political and thematic context as well as the
development partnerships of the Community initiative and indicates
arrangements for its financing.

The Commission invites the Member States to present their proposal of
Community Initiative Programmes (CIPs) concerning EQUAL within a delay of
four months counting from the date of publication of the communication in
the Official Journal.

The total FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION to the EQUAL Programme from the Community
budget for the period 2000-2006 is almost 3 BILLION Euro.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT that gay and lesbian organisations in the member states
lobby their governments (normally ministries for equal opportunities or
labor) in order to have sexual orientation discrimination appropriately
addressed in the national plans (CIPs) for EQUAL.

ILGA-Europe Board would also ask you to communicate to the Board and the
e-mail list positive results and difficulties you may encounter in the
lobbying process.


SPAIN - THREE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BILLS IN PARLIAMENT
By Cesar Leston

Three bills have been submitted in the Spanish Parliament who would
recognize rights to Domestic Partnerships. They have been produced by the
Socialist Party - PSOE, Izquierda Unida - IU (a coalition of small left and
green parties axed on the remains of the communist party much like the
Italian Olivo coalition) and Convergencia-CiU, in office in Catalonia.
Unlike the bills already in force in Catalonia or Aragon or the bill still
being drafted in Andalusia (granting relevant but minor rights), the Federal
Parliament may produce legislation on domestic partnerships of specific
importance, such as on taxation, inheritance rights, pensions, etc.

They do not present remarkable differences with texts submitted in other
legislatures. Their basic features is they would provide most rights to
unmarried couples but those on adoption issues (the IU draft does). Maybe
the only relevant difference is that the law submitted by CiU provides
different forms of recognition for same-sex or different-sex partnerships.
This is only logic for such is the way couples are dealt with on the law
already in force in Catalonia (where they are in office), which they
created.

All three laws will have to be voted in Parliament before they start all
other parliamentary procedure (amendments). If defeated, they will just be
dismissed.

And, the question is: How successful these proposals will be. That question
remains open. The Popular Party - PP, in office at federal level, has never
welcomed domestic partnership initiatives and blocked others in the
preceding legislatures. And they have an absolute majority on both chambers
of parliament. But, on the other hand, they seem very keen on developing
some form of consensus for all legislative initiatives. Given the fact
(which they know) that, according to surveys, the Spaniards think by
overwhelming majority (some 68 %, of all political factions, including thus
their own voters) that some law ought to be passed, they are not likely to
just impose their absolute majority in seats in Parliament because it would
be too controversial. Also recently the major of Madrid (more conservative
wing within the PP) made a statement against partnerships... which was
promptly responded not only by the opposition of all parties but also by
leaders of his own... while no one defended him. In other words, the swords
may be raised and an internal battle in the PP. The outcome is uncertain but
some chance exists.


SPAIN - A BILL ON FAMILY REGROUPING FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES IN CATALAN
PARLIAMENT
By Cesar Leston

A draft of bill has been submitted on May 22nd on FAMILY REUNION FOR
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS. Under this bill all the couples living in Catalonia
and qualifying as domestic partnerships under the terms of the Catalan Law
of Domestic Partnership (1998) would also qualify for family regrouping if
one of the members of the couple is a national of a non-EU member state
living legally in Catalonia and a national on another non-EU member state
living illegally in Catalonia.  The Catalan branch of the Socialist Party -
PSOE, has submitted the draft of bill.

The actual effect of this bill would be, for instance, allowing non-EU
nationals living illegally in Catalonia to obtain a residence permit on the
basis of being a member of a domestic partnership. A judge already granted
such right last winter to a same-sex couple integrated by a Spaniard and a
Peruvian citizen (who had no residence permit) but this was only a first
instance court ruling and does mean by itself a change in the law.

This sensitive issue has been closely monitored by the Fundación Triángulo
from December last year, when the European Commission submitted a proposal
of DIRECTIVE ON THE RIGHT TO FAMILY REUNION who acknowledges as a member of
the family his couple of either sex when domestic partnerships are granted
some legal status in the country of origin. From the first moment, some
European governments (including the Spanish) dismissed this point of the
Commission proposal for, they said, domestic partnerships lacked recognition
in national laws. This is not only false (since domestic partnerships have
been granted recognition at national level in several issues [habeas corpus,
witnesses protection, property letting, victims of violent crimes, asylum or
refugee status seekers]) but also incongruous since such issue on the
Directive proposal would only be implemented in member states where domestic
partnerships would enjoy explicit recognition.

Triangle Foundation included this claim when it issued proposals to
political parties before last legislative election (march 2000), which it
has also sent to all MP's in the Lower Chamber. We also think this would
have quite a relevant impact in Catalonia for there is indeed there a legal
recognition of domestic partnerships which might benefit from this right if
the Spanish government allows it. But this will need lots of lobbying and
support. Otherwise, we might be facing a ridiculous and discriminatory
situation such as Dutch or Swedish citizens being able to regroup their
family while Catalans would not.


SOUTHERN SPAIN - ANDALUSIAN PARLIAMENT TO CONSIDER LEGAL STATUS FOR
DOMESTICPARTNERSHIPS
By Cesar Leston

The Welfare Dpt. Chief of the Andalusian Government declared that his office
would produce a draft of bill on Domestic Partnerships of either sex. The
draft, he said, would be presented to the Andalusian parliament during this
legislature (which has just started). His commitment, he stressed, made
sense as such a law was a part of the manifesto for last regional elections,
which confirmed the majority of the Socialist Party  - PSOE. Nevertheless,
there have been some rumours that the work of producing the law had been
delayed for the lawyers in the Welfare Department had been giving priority
to some other drafts.

Meanwhile, the president of the Andalusian Federation of Lesbians and Gays,
Mr Rafael Salazar, said he would be asking the Andalusian Government to
include in the law the fostering issue.

The adoption legislation is a federal government issue, but, as he said, the
Andalusian gov. may legislate on fostering of minors. Thus, Mr Salazar said,
once the talks between the Andalusian government and the concerned NGO's,
his group would be asking the law to allow same-sex couples to be allowed to
foster children, a right already granted to straight-couples in Andalusia.
"What we don't want is just a nice paper", he said.


CZECH REPUBLIC PLANS PARTNER LAW
By Rex Wochner

The Czech Republic's human rights commissioner, Petr Uhl, announced plans
May 4 for a new registered-partnership measure.

Deputy Prime Minister Pavel Rychetsky said the ruling Social Democrats
support the idea and will draft a bill. The Communists also favor it; the
Christian Democrats oppose it.

The announcement came on the heels of a hundreds-strong lesbian conference
in Prague called Aprilfest, which was held April 28-30. News reports said
the conference injected new life into the partnership-law campaign.

Partnership legislation was rejected by Parliament last December in a 91-69
vote. It would have granted gay couples all rights of marriage except for
access to adoption.

Gay couples have nearly all the rights of marriage in Denmark, France,
Greenland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the U.S. state of
Vermont.



BELGIAN PARTNER LAW UNPOPULAR
By Rex Wochner

Belgium's toothless "statutory cohabitation contract" has been unpopular
since it came into force Jan. 1.

Only eight couples have registered in Brussels, Le Soir reported May 5.
Numbers are similarly low elsewhere in the country.

The registration is basically symbolic, failing to confer any of the rights
of marriage.

"This law is completely pointless, it offers nothing for anybody, whether
heterosexual or homosexual," said Jean-Paul Leroy, president of Infor-Homo.
"It solves none of their problems, neither with the social security system
nor with the tax payable on their legacies."

Gay-friendly members of parliament hope to amend the law to grant statutory
cohabitants the benefits of marriage.


FRENCH PARTNER LAW POPULAR
By Rex Wochner

About 14,000 couples -- more than half of them gay -- have gotten hitched
since France's domestic-partnership law took effect last October.

Couples form Civil Solidarity Pacts at local court houses and acquire
marriage rights and obligations in areas such as income tax, inheritance,
housing, immigration, health benefits, job transfers, synchronized vacation
time, responsibility for debts, and social welfare.

The law does not grant marriage rights in the areas of parental rights,
adoption or medically assisted procreation.

Several other European nations -- including Denmark (and Greenland),
Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden -- have gay-only
registered-partnership laws that grant more than 99 percent of the rights
and obligations of matrimony.






Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
http://www.SteffenJensen.dk
Fax: + 45 4049 5297

INVITATION TO REGISTER YOUR INTEREST TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SEMINAR
"COMBATING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION"
ORGANISED BY ILGA-EUROPE IN VIENNA FROM 21 TO 25 JUNE 2000
(A SEMINAR IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE EU FUNDED PROJECT "STEPPING
STONES AND ROADBLOCKS")

Dear friends,

As you probably know already, ILGA-Europe is carrying out the partnership
project "Stepping Stones and Roadblocks" with two other European NGO
networks: "United for Intercultural Action", a network to fight racism,
fascism, and nationalism, and "Mobility International", a network to fight
discrimination against disabled people. (At the beginning of this year, all
ILGA members in Europe received, from United, the leaflet presenting the
project; there was also an article about the project in the ILGA Bulletin #
1/00; on 3 April, we sent an invitation to participate in the two first
seminars of this project via a couple of mailing lists.)

Today, we would like to invite you to apply to participate in the above
mentioned seminar in Vienna. Please, read the following information. If you
are interested, please, fill in and send us the attached form by 31 May 2000
at the latest. If you have any further query, please, don't hesitate to
contact us at the following e-mail address: ieboard@egroups.com

Best regards

The ILGA-Europe Executive Board


THE PROJECT BACKGROUND
The three partners have decided to work together in this project because
they feel that anti-discrimination work will benefit from exploring both
similarities and differences between the anti-racism movement, the movement
for equal rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people
and the movement for the equal rights of disabled people. The project
started in December 1999 and will be finished by December 2000. It includes
three seminars, each led by one of the movements. The seminars led by
Mobility and United have already taken place. The ILGA-Europe seminar will
take place next month. The results of all three seminars will be published
in conference reports which will be widely distributed. The second half of
2000 will be dedicated to further research into good practice. A final
report for the whole project will be published in November 2000. All reports

will be published in English, French and German.

THE SEMINAR BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The seminar is planned for around 40 participants. We have around 25 places
to offer for participants from ILGA-Europe members in EU Member States. (Due
to the funding constraints of the project, we can only cover the costs of
participation for people residing in the EU.) Five participants will come
from the United, five from the Mobility network (the two other seminars were
arranged in an analogous way: the host network "dominated" with around 25
participants, each of the other networks had up to five participants). There
will also be some experts presenting examples of good practice.

The aim of the seminar is to reflect on the main issues in the struggle
against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination, and to find
links with the fight against prejudice and for equal rights for disabled
people, and the fight against racism. The seminar will be a unique
opportunity to learn more about successes in the struggle of these three
movements, to learn from each other, to exchange information about good and
best practice and successful working methods. It will also be a unique
occasion to discuss with representatives from the other two movements how we
can co-operate and fight together in the future. The seminar will also
consider the prejudices that exist within our movements, and the necessity
to raise awareness of the diversity of the LGBT communities.

The seminar's way of working will include presentations, plenary sessions,
workshops, informal and panel discussion. The emphasis will be on practical
(net)working.

The conference language will be English. Participants are expected to have
at least basic knowledge of English. But don't worry: English will be almost
nobody's mother tongue.It is also planned to join the weekly Thursday
demonstration against the new right/extreme right Austrian government.

PARTICIPATION DETAILS
The seminar will bring together participants who represent organisations
active in different fields. Priority will be given to

- nominations from ILGA member groups of delegates who are active in support
of more than one minority,

- nominations of disabled people, black people and those from minority
ethnic communities,

- nominations of people who work in the fight against discrimination of GLBT
people and, therefore, could pro-actively contribute to discussing good
practice in areas concerned (f. ex. education, health, lobbying, law reform,
campaigning, networking, awareness raising, etc. etc.), and even may be able
to give a presentation at the seminar or contribute to the research part of
the project.

Please, specify your working background, your experience and any of the
aspects referred to above in the "registration of interest form", and, if
appropriate, state your proposal for a presentation.

ILGA-Europe will try to also guarantee gender balance and a good
geographical distribution among participants.

The selection of participants will be done immediately after the 31 May.
Therefore, don't miss the deadline! We will inform everybody by 4 June
whether she/he has been selected to participate or not. Those selected will
also receive further details and a draft programme of the seminar.

For the participants chosen, ILGA-Europe will pay the travel costs,
accommodation on a double room basis including full board. (Accommodation in
a single room may be possible at one's own expenses - extra costs: ATS 890
per night.) Since it is a very small seminar, we expect participants to take
part in the whole seminar. The seminar will start on Thursday (22 June) in
the
morning and end on Sunday (25 June) at noon. Accommodation will be provided
from Wednesday through Sunday. Participants, therefore, are expected to
arrive on Wednesday or on Thursday before 9 a.m. at the latest. Travel cost
will be reimbursed according to the following rules: up to 800 km: train 2nd
class or bus (all reductions obligatory: special weekend tickets etc.); over

800 km: APEX weekend flights.

IMPORTANT: Due to the tight time schedule, we recommend that people who
register their interest for the seminar already now try to tentatively
reserve their flights and don't wait for the results of the selection: It
might be difficult to book convenient flights after 4 June which will only
be two weeks before the seminar (and for some cheap APEX tickets you have to

book two weeks in advance!). However, don't commit yourself financially:
just make a reservation. ILGA-Europe CANNOT reimburse any costs for booked
flights that will have to be cancelled because people will not be selected
for the seminar.


****************************************************************************
************

REGISTRATION OF INTEREST FORM
(Deadline for registration: 31 May 2000)

ILGA-EUROPE SEMINAR
COMBATING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION

in the framework of the EU funded project
”STEPPING STONES AND ROADBLOCKS”

Vienna, 21 - 25 June 2000


I apply to participate in the above mentioned seminar:


Name:
Sex:

Organisation:

Postal address:




Email:

Phone:
Fax:

Address to which conference documents should be sent (if different from
above address):




Special diet needs (vegetarian, etc.):



Other special needs (please, specify also if you use a wheelchair, need an
”accessible” room, if you bring a personal assistant, need sign language
interpretation, etc.):








Motivation and aims for participating:









Working/Organisational/Personal background:







I propose to give a presentation on the following subject:



Other remarks:




Probable Arrival day/time:

Probable Departure day/time:

Probable travel costs (please, note conditions in the invitation letter):




Please, send this registration form by 31 May 2000 to:

Kurt Krickler, Blechturmgasse 7/8, A-1050 Vienna, Austria

or fax it to the following fax number: +43-1-545 13 10

or PREFERABLY e-mail it to: ieboard@egroups.com

EURO-LETTER
No. 79 			 				  April 2000

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European Region
of the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and Lesbian
International Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National Association for
Gays and Lesbians.

Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen and
Soeren Baatrup.
Contact to Euro-Letter:E-mail: steff@...:
http://www.steff.suite.dkFax: +45 4049 5297Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45
2033 0840Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen
V, Denmark

You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters are
available on the Internet at http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html

IN THIS ISSUE
ILGA-EUROPE COMMENTS TO DRAFT CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS   OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION
UK TO ACCEPT ADOPTION BY GAY COUPLES
CANADIAN PARTNER BILL PASSES HOUSE OF COMMONS
UK HOUSE OF LORDS OK EQUAL AGE OF CONSENT
LETTER TO SELECTED MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur/

*************************

DRAFT CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS   OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Submission of ILGA-Europe , the European Region of the International Lesbian
and Gay Association, to the Charter Convention

1. Summary
ILGA-Europe’s main recommendations are as follows:

The non-discrimination article of the Charter should include every ground of
discrimination listed in Article 13 of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.  The list in Article 13 EC, adopted in
1997, includes three important new grounds, disability, age and sexual
orientation, which do not appear in the list in Article 14 of the
Convention, adopted in 1950. However, ILGA Europe would wish to see the
combined EC Treaty/Convention list supplemented in the European Union
Charter by one additional ground, gender identity. We believe that this
would serve to emphasise the need for protection from discrimination of a
small, but very vulnerable group, transgendered people.

Article 13, Family Life of the draft Charter should be worded to recognise
the diversity of family life in today’s Europe.

2. NON-DISCRIMINATION

2.1 The inclusion of sexual orientation in the list of  prohibited grounds
of discrimination
The two main arguments for the inclusion of sexual orientation in the
non-discrimination clause of the European Union Charter rest on the serious
and wide-spread nature of the discrimination, and on the numerous precedents
which now exist in European and national law for the inclusion of such a
reference.


2.1.1 The seriousness of sexual orientation discrimination

ILGA Europe has recently published a comprehensive survey of discrimination
against lesbian, gay and bisexual persons in Europe . This reveals a most
disturbing picture of the extent and seriousness of sexual orientation
discrimination in Europe, whether among Member States of the European Union,
the accession countries, or other European countries. For example:

· Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation can be found in the laws
or regulations of 7 Member States , and 8 accession countries.  The most
common such provision, a discriminatory age of consent (4 Member States and
6 accession countries), has been ruled a violation of the European
Convention on Human Rights by the European Commission on Human Rights.
· 4 Member States and 2 accession countries  have legal provisions or
regulations that deny employment on the basis of sexual orientation in
certain fields of state employment. The most common such provision, in the
case of the armed forces (applying in 3 Member States and 2 accession
countries), has been ruled a violation of the Convention by the European
Court of Human Rights.
· Studies in Sweden and the UK show that employment discrimination by
individual employers is extensive. For example, a 1997 report by the Swedish
Ministry
of Labour included a survey of 650 lesbian, gay and bisexual persons. 12%
said they had been turned down for a job as a result of sexual orientation,
8% had been denied promotion, and 8% had been forced to leave their job.
· Homophobic violence is very common, as surveys in Ireland, Sweden and the
United Kingdom have revealed.  Typically, around a quarter of respondents in
these surveys had been the victim of a violent attack. It is clear that in
many European countries it can be very dangerous to identify oneself in
public places as gay.
· Only 4 Member States and one accession country  accord a significant
degree of legal recognition to same-sex partnerships (none of which is
without discriminatory elements).

Inclusion of sexual orientation in the non-discrimination clause of the
European Union Charter is made all the more necessary by:

· the failure of so many governments to recognise that sexual orientation
discrimination is as pernicious and as damaging as other forms of prohibited
discrimination, and to take steps to eliminate it both from their own laws
and regulations, and to counter it in society generally;
· The fact that many people, both in public life, and as private citizens,
still consider the expression of homophobic attitudes to be legitimate and
respectable.


2.1.2 Precedents in European and National Law
The European Community has express competence to combat sexual orientation
discrimination under Article 13 of the EC Treaty, inserted by the Treaty of
Amsterdam in 1997.  This is a most important precedent, in the light of
which the exclusion of  sexual orientation discrimination from the
non-discrimination clause of the Charter would be highly anomalous.  Indeed,
omission from the Charter would represent a signal that the Union had
weakened its view as to the unacceptability of sexual orientation
discrimination.

Although the European Convention on Human Rights does not make explicit
mention of sexual orientation, a recent judgment of the European Court of
Human Rights recognises that sexual orientation discrimination is a
prohibited ground of discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention.
Moreover, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted in
January 2000 to support a recommendation that sexual orientation be included
in the list of prohibited grounds in the new draft Protocol No 12 to the
Convention, which is currently under consideration by the Committee of
Ministers. It took the view that explicit reference should be made to
grounds of discrimination that were “especially odious”, and that sexual
orientation discrimination was amongst these.

Since the 1970s, national anti-discrimination legislation and bills of
rights in national constitutions, within and outside Europe, have
increasingly recognised sexual orientation discrimination. Within the Member
States of the European Union, the term ”sexual orientation” (or a similar
ground intended to cover sexual orientation) appears as a prohibited ground
of discrimination in the legislation of 8 states: Denmark, Finland, France,
Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. It also appears in
the legislation of one accession country, Slovenia, in that of two other
European countries, Iceland and Norway, and in that of seven countries
outside Europe, Canada , Australia , the United States , Israel, Namibia,
New Zealand and South Africa. Moreover, in four countries, South Africa
(1993), Ecuador (1998), Fiji (1998) and Switzerland (1999), sexual
orientation (or a similar ground intended to cover sexual orientation) is
included in the non-discrimination provision of the national constitution.

2.2 Gender Identity

2.2.1 ILGA-Europe submits that the non-discrimination article of the EU
Charter should also include the ground “gender identity” so as to make it
clear that people who are transsexual or transgender  are protected and in
recognition of the particular vulnerability of this group.

2.2.2 The seriousness of discrimination
Transsexual and transgender people are one of the most vulnerable minorities
in Europe. Their relatively small numbers make it extremely difficult for
them to obtain any protection against discrimination through new
legislation. They face violence, harassment and the denial of jobs or
services because their gender identity or expression does not correspond
with their recorded birth sex.  The discrimination they face can be quite as
severe as that faced by other groups who traditionally are accorded specific
protection by national and international anti-discrimination legislation.

When a transsexual person undergoes gender reassignment, some countries
refuse to acknowledge the change of their social gender and/or the change of
their body morphology . In these states transsexual people are forced to
endure the almost daily humiliation of revealing their birth sex in many
practical areas of life, so making them vulnerable to discrimination and
prejudice regardless of the success of their gender role transition. The
European Court of Human Rights condemned this practice, where forced
disclosure of birth sex is sufficiently frequent, by finding a violation of
Article 8 in B. v. France (1992). In that case, the applicant could not
legally change her male forename, and could not prevent the disclosure of
her birth sex (male) in documents such as her national identity card and her
passport, and in her social security number.

Additionally this failure to recognise their new gender role means that for
many they are effectively unable, in law, to found families and to take on
the full social responsibilities embedded within the family.

2.2.3 Increasing recognition at the European and national level
There is throughout Europe ever wider recognition of transsexuality both by
legislation and judicial decision and sex change surgery is allowed in every
member state of the European Community.

In 1989 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted
Recommendation 1117 on discrimination against transsexuals and a Resolution
on the condition of transsexuals, which in cases of transsexualism called on
Member States to introduce legislation whereby

	 “all discrimination in the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms is
prohibited in accordance with Article 14 of the European Convention of Human
Rights.”

Moreover, despite the extreme difficulties that transsexual people
experience in attempting to invoke the legislative process, there have been
in the 1990s a growing number of precedents within countries for express
protection. The anti-discrimination legislation of a number of cities in the
USA includes “gender identity” as a prohibited ground . In the US state of
Minnesota, anti-discrimination legislation defines “sexual orientation” as
including “having ... a self-image or identity not traditionally associated
with one’s biological maleness or femaleness”  and in California gender and
gender expression are protected categories under the state’s Hate Crime’s
legislation .
Discrimination against transsexual persons is also expressly prohibited in
South Australia  and in the Northern Territory of Australia  where the
ground sexuality is defined to include ‘transsexuality’, and in the
Australian Capital Territory, where “transsexuality” is a separate
prohibited ground . In New South Wales in Australia  discrimination is
prohibited ‘on transgender grounds’ and the legislation refers to people as
‘being transgender’.

2.3 A Non-Exhaustive List of Grounds
The Charter’s non-discrimination article will establish a general
non-discrimination principle for the EU.  Such a general principle can only
be established if the list of grounds in the article is open-ended or
non-exhaustive, as is the case in Article 14 of the European Convention (“on
any ground such as ... or other status”), Article 2 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (“without distinction of any kind, such as ...
or other status”), or Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (“on any ground such as ... or other status”).

The current draft of the Charter’s non-discrimination article – Draft
Article 19(1) (CHARTE 4137/00 – CONVENT 8) is not open-ended. It should
therefore be reworded as follows:
“1.  Any discrimination based on any ground such as ... or other status
shall be prohibited.”

3. PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE
The European Convention on Human Rights includes respect for private and
family life in one article, with the following wording: “the right to
respect for private and family life”.

The most recent draft of the text covering private and family life available
at the time of writing (CHARTE 4149/00 CONVENT 13) separates the right to
respect for family life from that for private life by placing it in Article
13, Family Life, and refers to “privacy” rather than “private life”. We
believe that it would be preferable for the Charter to follow the approach
used in the Convention:

a. “Private life” is a concept that has been interpreted by the European
Court and Commission of Human Rights in a large number of published
decisions.  “Privacy”, found in Article 26 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, may or may not have the same breadth as “private
life”, and has been interpreted in relatively few cases by the United
Nations Human Rights Committee.

b. “Private life” should also appear in the same article as “family life”,
to emphasise, as the European Court of Human Rights has done in its case
law, that family life can exist between cohabiting partners in the absence
of a marriage.  In both Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the reference to “privacy” is followed immediately by a reference to
“family”.  This is logical in that “family life” is one of the most
important aspects of a person’s “private life”.


4. RIGHT TO MARRY AND TO FOUND A FAMILY
The most recent draft of the article on Family Life (CHARTE 4149/00 CONV 13)
reads as follows:

“Article 13. Family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his family life.
2. Everyone has the right to marry and to found a family, according to the
laws of the
Member States governing the exercise of this right.
3. Protection of the family on a legal, economic and social level shall be
ensured.”

As noted above, we believe that the “right to respect for family life”
should be moved to Article 12, Respect for Private Life.

In addition, we suggest that Draft Article 13(3) should be amended as
follows:

“3. Protection of families on a legal, economic and social level, and
recognition of their diversity, shall be ensured.”

It is abundantly clear at the dawn of the 21st century that we can no longer
speak of “the family”, as if every family in the EU consisted of a married
heterosexual couple and their children living together.  We would not speak
of “the religion”, because there are different religions in the EU.
Similarly, there is now a variety of forms of “families” in the EU, and the
EU Charter must provide for the recognition of this social reality.

5.  LEGAL STATUS OF CHARTER
ILGA-Europe considers that the Charter must be incorporated in the European
Union Treaties, so as to avoid amounting to no more than an ineffectual
declaration.

6. THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS
ILGA-Europe supports the complete and express recognition of the fundamental
rights of third country nationals within the territory of the European
Union.



UK TO ACCEPT ADOPTION BY GAY COUPLES
By Eben Black, Chief Political Correspondent Sunday Times (April 24th)

Tony Blair is preparing to make it easier for gay couples to adopt children,
a move that would be seen as putting them on a par with married
heterosexuals.

He is planning a new national adoption scheme that would force councils to
consider gay would-be parents' applications, which most reject outright at
present.

The disclosure dismayed family campaigners.  Valerie Riches, director of
Family and Youth Concern, said:  "This government is beholden to the gay
lobby.  It is very serious for the institution of marriage, which is the
safest and best way to bring up children." The government announced last
year that it was to review adoption after figures showed that there were
more than 50,000 children in care homes.  The initiative was given added
impetus in the wake of a sex abuse scandal at care homes in north Wales,
where at least 150 children were abused.

A summit meeting of adoption workers and council social services
professionals will be hosted in Downing Street by John Hutton, the health
minister, on Tuesday.

By making adoption easier, Blair aims to end the frustration that many
couples feel at the delays and curbs placed on their applications.  At
present, nearly 1,300 would-be parents are waiting to adopt, although there
are 5,000 children who have been approved to join families.

In British law there is nothing to stop a gay man or woman from individually
adopting a child, subject to approval by the adoption agency, whether they
live with a lover or not.  In practice, however, very few applications are
granted.  In 1998 Cardiff University researchers found that only three out
of 2,000 approved adoptions were by gays.

Under the new national adoption plan, which will replace individual rules
and criteria imposed by local councils, officials will have to treat gay
would-be parents on the same basis as anybody else, provided they fulfilled
criteria such as good health, parenting skills, regular income and a stable
relationship.  "This is about making adoption easier and it includes gay
adoption," a Downing Street source said.

The move follows a landmark legal judgment by the law lords last year which
said a gay couple should be treated as a family.  Dame Elizabeth
Butler-Sloss, the new president of the family division of the High Court,
also said that children could be successfully adopted by gay couples.

Gay rights campaigners estimate there could be thousands of homosexual
couples who could benefit from a shift that would end prejudice against gays
adopting.  In Denmark and Holland, gays can adopt in the same way as married
couples.  Germany is considering a similar change.

Hutton last night said Britain was currently bound by a convention signed in
1967 that only individuals or married couples can adopt.  He insisted there
was no immediate intention of changing that.

But he added:  "We are revisiting the legislation.  If there is to be any
substantial reform to adoption law, we need legislation.  If there is
prejudice it has to be looked at.  What we will certainly be looking at is
how local authorities vet prospective adopters."

Felicity Collier, chief executive of the British Agencies for Adoption and
Fostering, which has been commissioned by the health department to draw up
the national guidelines, said it was "unhelpful" to exclude any group on
"arbitrary grounds". "There are not enough families coming forward for the
children waiting to be adopted," she said.  "We don't think you should
exclude people in gay and lesbian relationships."

Easing the adoption process for gays will raise questions about whether gay
couples should be treated as a "family" for other purposes, and even bring
up the controversial subject of whether gay marriages should be allowed in
Britain.

Blair is determined to sweep away rules imposed by councils, which have
included banning people weighing over 15st from adopting, introducing age
limits such as 35 years ­ despite the limit being within child-bearing age ­
or declaring would-be parents to be either "too black" or "too white" for
mixed-race or ethnic-origin children.

Critics are concerned about adopted children in gay relationships suffering
from lack of a mother or father role model.  Rosemary Keenan, of Westminster
Catholic Children's Society, said:  "Children need a male and female role
model."


CANADIAN PARTNER BILL PASSES HOUSE OF COMMONS
By Rex Wockner

Canadian legislation that will equalize gay and straight couples passed its
final reading in the House of Commons April 18 by a vote of 174 to 72.

The measure grants gay couples all federal benefits received by common-law
opposite-sex spouses and extends to gay and straight common-law couples many
marriage rights that neither group currently has. It rewrites some 70
federal statutes in areas ranging from pensions and insurance to income tax
and prison visits.

The bill is a response to several court decisions, including last year's
Supreme Court ruling that Ontario's definition of "spouse" was
unconstitutionally heterosexist.

"This legislation is about respect," said Justice Minister Anne McLellan.
"It's about tolerance. It's about fairness."

The measure must pass through the unelected Senate, which is expected to
rubberstamp it, before it becomes law.


UK HOUSE OF LORDS OK EQUAL AGE OF CONSENT
By Rex Wockner

A measure to equalize the ages of consent for gay and straight sex at 16
received an unopposed second reading in Britain's anti-gay House of Lords
April 11. Currently gay-male sex is not legal until age 18.

The Lords still oppose the bill but because they have blocked it repeatedly
in the past, the government now has the authority to invoke the little-used
Parliament Act to change the law without the Lords' approval.

The Parliament Act can be used only when the unelected Lords repeatedly vote
down a bill that began in and passed the elected House of Commons. The act
has been used five times since 1911. Had the Lords blocked the consent bill
again, the government would have invoked the act immediately.

The measure still faces a third reading before the Lords but it is not
expected to encounter further serious opposition.

The Lords likely will seek their revenge against Prime Minister Tony Blair's
Labour government by continuing to block repeal of Section 28, a 10-year-old
law that prohibits cities from "intentionally promot[ing] homosexuality" or
teaching "the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family
relationship" in schools.

Because the Section 28 repeal bill began in the House of Lords, the Lords'
vote on it cannot be overridden via the Parliament Act.


LETTER TO SELECTED MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
By ILGA-Europe

We, the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association
(ILGA-Europe) are writing to you to express our concerns over one part of
the Naranjo Escobar draft opinion (PE 233.002) on the Non-Discrimination
Action Programme for the Budgets Committee. The opinion is due to be voted
by the Budget Committee on 22 May, with a deadline for amendments of 3 May.

Whilst the tone of the opinion is generally supportive towards organisations
working on non-discrimination issues, we are very worried by the
ramifications of amendment 7, which relates to the Annex of the proposed
Action Programme ­ Strand 2, Capacity Building.

Amendment 7 proposes to reduce the level of co-funding for core activities
of European NGOs proposed by the European Commission from up to 90% to 50%.

If this amendment is carried, it will have a catastrophic impact upon
European NGOs working on behalf of the most vulnerable groups in society.
Organisations affected would include those working against discrimination on
the grounds of race and ethnicity, disability, gender, sexual orientation,
and age. The effectiveness of many of these organisations to work to improve
the lives of the victims of discrimination would be seriously diminished by
a 50% co-financing requirement, as it is highly unlikely that they would be
able to secure such high levels of co-financing from other sources.

We believe that this amendment undermines the aim of Article 13 to put in
place measures which will counter the growth of discrimination.
European-level NGOs in this field play a vital role in fostering a
pan-European solidarity against discriminatory actions, a role which is
particularly critical in the context of the present political climate.

We would like to request your support, and that of your group, in opposing
amendment 7 and reverting to the original wording of the Commission
proposal. We would be very grateful for the opportunity to meet with you to
discuss this important issue, and its ramifications for the fight against
discrimination. We will contact you to see whether such a meeting could be
arranged.

The 10 % co-financing requirement already provided for in the proposal of
the Commission is certainly the maximum a relatively small organisation such
as ILGA-Europe could cope with, provided for that in-kind contribution would
be possible under any projects co-financed by the Commission.

We thank you very much for your support. For any further query, please,
contact us at the following e-mail address: ieboard@egroups.com


Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: + 45 4049 5297

Dear friends,

ILGA-Europe would like to draw your attention to an EU funded project in
which ILGA-Europe is a partner (see details below). We are now looking for
people from ILGA-Europe member groups in EU countries who would be
interested in participating in the seminars organised by Mobility
international in April and by United for Intercultural Action in May. We
know that this is on very short notice but hope that some people may be
interested in attending. Please, find in the attached files all relevant
information concerning the Mobility seminar. Information on the project and
the United seminar is also available on the United homepage in the internet:
http://www.united.non-profit.nl

We are especially looking for participants who have either been involved in
activities relevant for our project "Stepping Stones and Roadblocks" and,
therefore, could pro-actively contribute to the discussions/workshops at the
two seminars or who are interested in the subjects and want to become
involved. ILGA-Europe can offer three places in each of the two seminars.
Participation will be fully paid from the project budget (including a
personal assistant if necessary).

If you are interested, please contact the ILGA-Europe board at
ieboard@egroups.com and send us a few lines about your background, how you
could contribute to the discussions and/or why you are interested in
participating in the seminar.

Best regards
Kurt Krickler
ILGA-Europe co-chair
Tel. +43-1-545 13 10


STEPPING STONES AND ROADBLOCKS

A partnership project against discrimination

MOBILITY Internationaal - ILGA-Europe - UNITED for Intercultural Action



"Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the
limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting
unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the
European Parliament, may take appropriate ACTION TO COMBAT DISCRIMINATION
based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age
or sexual orientation².
Article 13, Treaty establishing the European Community



This leaflet introduces to you an exciting new partnership project of UNITED
for Intercultural Action, the European region of the International Lesbian
and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe) and MOBILITY INTERNATIONAL. This
initiative brings together the experience and know-how of three important
European NGO networks and their respective local, regional and national
organisations.


WHY?

We want equal rights, in all spheres of life. We all have our ways of
changing the world, at least a little bit. All partners in the project feel
that anti-discrimination work will benefit from exploring both similarities
and differences between the anti-racism movement, the movement for equal
rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people and the
movement for the equal rights of people with disabilities. What works in one
movement, may work as well in another where it has never been tried out.


WHEN?

The project will take place from December 1999 until December 2000, but we
are sure that the partnership will last after the project has ended. We hope
that local and national organisations will take over the idea and develop
cooperations with different groups working for equal rights.

WHAT?

The co-operation will bring together activists from three different
backgrounds to combine and share their experience on a very practical level.
The project includes three seminars, each led by one of the movements. The
seminars will take place in the first half of 2000. Their results will be
published in conference reports and spread throughout Europe. The second
half of 2000 will be dedicated to research into good practice. You will be
informed of the results, as soon as they become available.

SEMINARS

12 - 16 April 2000
"Equal Rights for People with Disabilities" - in Bruxelles
led by MOBILITY INTERNATIONAL

3 - 7 May 2000
"The Struggle Against Racism" - near Paris
led by UNITED for Intercultural Action

21 - 25 June 2000
"Combating sexual orientation discrimination" - in Vienna
led by ILGA-Europe

ARTICLE 13

In Article 13 of the EC Treaty, a possibility has been created for the
European Union to take action against discrimination on six grounds. This is
a great step forward. But the key issue remains; will the Council - i.e. the
fifteen Member States - agree to adopt substantial measures against
discrimination?
(full text on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg5/fundamri/news/article13_en.htm)

WHAT ABOUT ME?

If you are interested in co-operating in this common project, contact
UNITED, ILGA-Europe or MOBILITY INTERNATIONAL to express your interest. You
could work in this project at one of the seminars, or contribute to the good
practice research in the second half of the project.
  INTERNATIONAL LESBIAN AND GAY ASSOCIATION ­ EUROPE
ILGA was founded in 1978. It is a world-wide federation of national,
regional and local organisations and groups dedicated to working for equal
rights for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and/or transgendered people. During
the 22 years of its existence, ILGA has called for and carried out numerous
campaigns for law reform in many countries and against individual cases of
discrimination, highlighting many cases of human rights violations. ILGA has
also given impetus and support to many gay and lesbian groups in, for
example Latin America and South Africa, and played a crucial role in the
emergence and development of the first gay and lesbian organisations in the
former "East Bloc². In December 1996 ILGA-Europe became the first
independent regional structure of ILGA.
ILGA has undertaken sustained lobbying of many international organisations,
such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE. ILGA-Europe enjoys consultative
status with the Council of Europe. In 1997 ILGA-Europe adopted an Action
Plan aiming at the European Commission which emphasises a horizontal¹ and
mainstreaming¹ approach in seeking the inclusion of lesbian and gay concerns
in all appropriate activities and programmes of the European Union.
ILGA-Europe is also working to develop and strengthen its links to other
organisations which are committed to the achievement and respect of human
rights. It is for example a member of the Platform of European Social NGOs.


MOBILITY INTERNATIONAL

MOBILITY INTERNATIONAL was formally established in 1982, as a
non-governmental, non-profitmaking international organisation of disabled
people. Its main aims include: promoting freedom of choice and equal
opportunities for people with disabilities in all spheres of life; providing
people with disabilities the opportunity to meet, understand and make
friends with others from different countries on international seminars,
exchanges, activity weeks and other projects; assisting in the setting up of
networks based on common interests and concerns; empowering people to reach
these goals through training in self-assertiveness, independence and
leadership; giving information to individuals and organisations on European
schemes and projects. Since its establishment MOBILITY INTERNATIONAL has
organised over 500 international projects aimed at all people with a
disability, regardless of their nationality, age or type of disability as
well as training courses for those for or living with them. MOBILITY
INTERNATIONAL has status with the United Nations, the Council of Europe and
the Commission of the European Union. MOBILITY INTERNATIONAL is a member of
the European Youth Forum, the European Anti-Poverty Network, the Platform of
European Social NGOs and the European Dissability Forum. MOBILITY
INTERNATIONAL advises the institutions of the EU on matters relating to the
advancement of people with disabilities and take an active lobbying role on
disability issues.


UNITED FOR INTERCULTURAL ACTION
European network against nationalism, racism, fascism and in support of
migrants and refugees

Racism, nationalism, fascism, discrimination, asylum policies... all of
these have a European dimension even though they often look like purely
national issues. Reports from all over Europe demonstrate the increasing
dangers facing migrants, refugees and minorities. We need to fight against
this mentality of a "Fortress Europe" on all levels, it cannot be fought on
local, regional and national level alone.
Linked through UNITED more than 500 organisations from a wide variety of
backgrounds and from all European countries work together on a voluntary
basis. They build their co-operation on common actions and shared activities
on a mutual respect. Since its start in 1992 the network has been orientated
towards concrete actions and practical, effective work.
The activities of the network consist of European co-ordination. This means:
bringing together organisations from all over Europe during conferences,
co-ordinating the several European cam-paigns and activities in which up to
30 countries and up to 200.000 people take part, raising public awareness
about the issues involved, keeping an up-to-date archive and database of
organisations active in the anti-racism field and the pro-duction of
information tools to be used by organi-sations in their struggle against
intolerance. UNITED is and will remain independent from all political
parties, organisations or states.
UNITED has consultative status with the Council of Europe and special
consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations.

ADDRESSES


International Lesbian and Gay Association - Europe
Kolenmarkt 81, B-1000 Brussels
phone +32-2-5022471, fax+32-2-5022471
e-mail ieboard@egroups.com
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm


MOBILITY International
18 boulevard Baudouin, B-1000 Brussels
phone+32-2-2015608, fax +32-2-2015763
e-mail mobint@...
http://www.mobility-international.org

UNITED for Intercultural Action
Postbus 413, NL-1000 AK Amsterdam
phone +31-20-6834778, fax +31-20-6834582
e-mail united@...
http://www.united.non-profit.nl

EURO-LETTER

No. 78 				     March 2000

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European Region
of the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and Lesbian
International Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National Association for
Gays and Lesbians. Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld,
Lisbeth Andersen and Soeren Baatrup.  Contact to Euro-Letter: E-mail:
steff@... URL: http://www.steff.suite.dk Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel:
+45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033 0840 Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej
31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V, Denmark  You can receive Euro-Letter by
e-mail by sending an empty message to  euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and
from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters are available on the Internet at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html


IN THIS ISSUE
SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION ENDEMIC IN EUROPE CONCLUDES REPORT TO
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CALLS AGAIN FOR RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF LESBIANS AND
GAY MEN
SWEDISH LEGISLATION TO GIVE GAY FOREIGNERS PARTNERSHIP RIGHTS
PERSECUTION OF HOMOSEXUALS ON THE THIRD REICH
AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE ON "ANTI-DISCRIMINATION" PACKAGE

Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur/


SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION ENDEMIC IN EUROPE CONCLUDES REPORT TO
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
By ILGA-Europe

The most comprehensive report ever published on sexual orientation
discrimination in Europe demonstrates very clearly that discrimination
against lesbian, gay and bisexual persons remains endemic and extremely
serious in Europe.

The report has been prepared by ILGA-Europe as a submission to the Legal
Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe. This Committee is collecting evidence on the situation of
lesbians and gays in Europe, with a view to making recommendations to
national governments and the Council of Europe on combating discrimination.

The report's findings include that:

Homophobic violence is common, even in countries like Sweden which are world
leaders in their support for lesbian and gay rights;
Many states are themselves guilty of oppression and discrimination: for
example, in 3 European countries or territorial entities same-sex
relationships remain criminal, while in a further 19 discriminatory sexual
offences provisions remain on the statute books; moreover, in many countries
the state continues to discriminate in employment, particularly in the Armed
Forces;
In some countries in Europe oppressive attitudes remain so dominant that no
lesbian and gay community of any sort is able to exist, while in many
countries lesbians face even greater isolation and marginalisation than gay
men;
Young lesbians and gays face problems of particular severity: peer pressure
to conform, homophobic bullying, rejection by the family, absence of
relevant sex education, absence of support groups and discriminatory age of
consent laws;

There is much discrimination and harassment at the workplace, but only 9 of
the 41 member states of the Council of Europe provide specific protection;
The absence of legal recognition for same-sex partnerships often gives rise
to hardship and serious practical problems, yet only 7 countries in Europe
provide a significant degree of such recognition.

Three areas of general concern are particularly stressed:

The fact that, for many politicians and religious leaders in Europe it
remains both legitimate and respectable to express homophobic opinions, in
terms that would be wholly unacceptable for any other minority;
The extent to which the expression of these opinions, not infrequently in
extreme and inflammatory terms, underpins and sanctions the other forms of
discrimination, harassment and violence faced by the lesbian, gay and
bisexual community;
The fact that, when it comes to the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual
people, the fundamental principle that "all people are born free and equal
in dignity and rights" (Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is
ignored by legislators and opinion formers of all persuasions.

On the positive side, the report documents the world-wide trend in recent
years towards recognising freedom from discrimination on the grounds of
sexual orientation as a fundamental right, and stresses the leading role
played in this development by the Council of Europe.

The report includes an appendix setting out a list of recommendations for
national governments and the Council of Europe to adopt in tackling
homophobic discrimination. Particular importance is attached to the express
inclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in
the proposed new Protocol No 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights
(see section on the Council of Europe below).

Nico Beger, ILGA-Europe co-representative to the Council of Europe,
commented: "the Parliamentary Assembly has recently taken a very positive
step in recommending that "sexual orientation" be included in the list of
prohibited grounds of discrimination in the new draft Protocol No 12 of the
European Convention.  We are now optimistic that they will come up with
strong recommendations both for national governments and for the Council of
Europe itself in extending the fight against discrimination."

Her co-delegate, Nigel Warner, added: "it is striking that in so many
countries in Europe it is the established churches which are at the centre
of opposition to lesbian and gay rights (including some initiatives by the
Council of Europe). It is anomalous that the leaders of a religion with the
basic tenet "love thy neighbour as thyself" should be so insistent on
denying equal rights to fellow human beings for no better reason than that
they love a person of the same sex; and even more anomalous, that they
should do so in terms which can sometimes be virulent and inflammatory".

The full text of ILGA Europe's submission to the Legal Affairs and Human
Rights Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly can be found at:
http://www.steff.suite.dk/final_report.rtf

THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
The Council of Europe's main role is to strengthen democracy, human rights
and the rule of law throughout its member states. Founded in the wake of the
Second World War, it is the continent's most important human rights
organisation, with some 41 member states committed to observing its human
rights standards.  The European Convention on Human Rights is the most
significant of its many human rights treaties. The European Court of Human
Rights settles complaints of violations of this Convention.

The Council of Europe is governed by the Foreign Ministers of its member
states (who together form its decision-making body, the "Committee of
Ministers") and by Representatives from their parliaments (who make up its
"Parliamentary Assembly".) More information on the Council can be obtained
from its website, http://www.coe.fr

The Committee of Ministers is currently considering the adoption of a new
Protocol (Protocol No 12) to the European Convention on Human Rights.  The
purpose of this Protocol is to strengthen the anti-discrimination provisions
of the Convention.  The Parliamentary Assembly recommended in January 2000
that this Protocol should make specific reference to sexual orientation
discrimination in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, in view
of its "odious" and "serious" nature. The verbatim report of the Assembly's
opinion and debate can be found at: http://stars.coe.fr/index_e.htm (click
on the "Parliamentary Works", and the "Sitting Documents" or "Reports on
Debates" or  The draft Protocol 12 can be found at
http://www.coe.fr/cm/dec/1999/677bis/42.htm


EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CALLS AGAIN FOR RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF LESBIANS AND
GAY MEN

On 16 March, 2000, the European Parliament adopted its report and resolution
on the respect for human rights in the European Union for 1998-99 (EP
document A5-0050/2000). Once more, the EP calls for granting equal rights to
non-married couples, including of the same-sex, as to married couples. The
EP also denounced the continuing social and legal discrimination of gays and
lesbians, expressing special concerns with regard to the continuous age of
consent discrimination in Austria where people still are imprisoned under
the notorious Article 209. The EP calls for the repeal of this article and
the release from prison of all those jailed on the basis of it. It also
calls upon six of the accession countries to repeal their anti-homosexual
penal code provisions (for the full text of the relevant parts of the
resolution, see below).

"ILGA-Europe, who has been lobbying for the appropriate consideration of the
human rights concerns of gays and lesbians in the report and in the
resolution both towards rapporteur Bertel Haarder, the EP Committee on
Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and before the full
plenary, welcomes the adequate representation of these concerns in the
resolution adopted with great majority", says ILGA-Europe co-chair Kurt
Krickler. "ILGA-Europe is very pleased to see that several of the amendments
we have proposed to the Parliament have been taken on board and been
adopted", adds co-chair Jackie Lewis .


FULL TEXT OF THE EP RESOLUTION - PARTS DEALING WITH SEXUAL ORIENTATION:

The European Parliament,

[under the heading of:] LIFE STYLES AND TYPES OF RELATIONSHIP

56. Calls on Member States to guarantee one-parent families, unmarried
couples and same-sex couples rights equal to those enjoyed by traditional
couples and families, particularly as regards tax law, pecuniary rights and
social rights;

57. Notes with satisfaction that, in a very large number of Member States,
there is growing legal recognition for extramarital cohabitation,
irrespective of gender; calls on the Member States ­ if they have not
already done so ­ to amend their legislation recognising registered
partnerships of persons of the same sex and assigning them the same rights
and obligations as exist for registered partnerships between men and women;
calls on those States which have not yet granted legal recognition to amend
their legislation to grant legal recognition of extramarital cohabitation,
irrespective of gender; considers, therefore, that rapid progress should be
made with mutual recognition of the different legally recognised non-marital
modes of cohabitation and legal marriages between persons of the same sex in
the EU;

58. Notes, however, that European citizens continue to suffer discrimination
and disadvantages in their personal and professional life as a result of
their sexual orientation; calls therefore on the Member States and the EU
institutions concerned to remedy such situations urgently;

59. Deplores the fact that some Member States still have a discriminatory
age-of-consent provision for homosexual relations in their criminal codes as
well as other forms of discrimination, in particular within the army,
although various competent human rights bodies and Parliament itself have
condemned these provisions; repeats its demand for such clauses to be
repealed;

60. Notes with satisfaction that the United Kingdom is undertaking to change
the relevant legislation, but notes with deep concern that Austria continues
to apply Article 209 of its Penal Code in persecuting homosexuals; urges
Austria once more to repeal this discriminatory provision, and immediately
to give amnesty to and to release from prison all persons imprisoned because
of this provision;

Human rights situation in the applicant countries

76. Calls on candidate countries to ratify all the Council of Europe
Conventions on human rights and calls on Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary,
Lithuania and Romania to remove from their penal codes all laws which entail
discrimination against lesbians and homosexuals;

77. States that the European Union will reject the accession of any
applicant country which, either in its legislation or in its practice, fails
to guarantee respect for human rights;


SWEDISH LEGISLATION TO GIVE GAY FOREIGNERS PARTNERSHIP RIGHTS
By the Swedish Ministry of Justice
Registering partnerships in Sweden is to be made more widely available to
foreigners. This is proposed in a government bill to the Riksdag.

For a partnership to be registered in Sweden today, there is a requirement
that at least one of the parties is a Swedish citizen resident in Sweden.
This denies two gay foreigners the ability to register their partnership in
Sweden. For example two gay foreigners who have lived in Sweden for a long
time or who were born in Sweden and have lived there all their life are not
able to register their partnership.

The Government now proposes that it should be possible to register a
partnership in Sweden if one of the parties has had habitual residence here
for at least two years. If the partner is a citizen of Sweden, Denmark,
Iceland, the Netherlands or Norway, there is no requirement that habitual
residence should have been for two years, it is sufficient that the partner
has habitual residence in Sweden.

The proposed amendment to the law means that Sweden will be the Nordic
country that goes the farthest regarding possibilities for foreign citizens
to register a partnership.

'The purpose of the amendment is to remove an unnecessary limitation and
make it possible for foreign citizens to enter into partnerships in Sweden,'
the Minister for Justice, Ms Laila Freivalds, says.

The Danish Partnership Act was recently amended so that Swedes in Denmark
can enter into partnerships there and similar amendments are also now being
prepared in Norway and Iceland so that Swedes who live in these countries
will be able to enter into partnerships there.

According to the proposal, the amendment should enter into force on 1 July
2000.


PERSECUTION OF HOMOSEXUALS ON THE THIRD REICH
Resolution agreed by the International Colloquium "The Persecution of
Homosexuals in the Third Reich"
on 12/13 February 2000 in Berlin

Immediate Rehabilitation of the Homosexual Victims of the National Socialist
Judicial System

The participants of the International Colloquium "The Persecution of
Homosexuals in the Third Reich" (held in February 2000 in Berlin by the Pink
Triangle Coalition, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights

Commission, and the Heinrich Böll Stiftung, related to the German green
party) demand the rapid and complete legal rehabilitation of the homosexual
victims of the Nazi judicial system. We call upon the German federal
government and the German Bundestag to take immediate action in this regard.

In 1935, the national socialists severely tightened the provisions of § 175
of the criminal code, both in defining the "crime" of homosexuality and its
possible punishment. Any type of sexual conduct between men was threatened
with punishment. For some Nazi judges, even "covetous looks" were enough to
constitute the crime. In the years 1935-1945, the Nazi judiciary convicted
over 50,000 people for homosexual "lewdness." To this day, individuals
convicted pursuant to Nazi § 175 have still not received any type of
compensation, nor have they been legally rehabilitated.

In June 1998, the German Bundestag passed a "Law to Annul Unjust Sentences
Imposed During the National Socialist Administration of Criminal Justice."

Two groups were excluded from the wholesale annulment of unjust Nazi
sentences: deserters and homosexuals. This gap in the Nazi Annulment Law
must now finally be closed. The sentences imposed on homosexual victims by
the Nazi judiciary pursuant to §§ 175 and 175a, No. 4, RStGB (Reich Criminal
Code) must likewise be officially set aside in a wholesale manner.

The city of Hamburg and the PDS group in the Bundestag have recently
initiated legislation to this effect in independant initatives. We call upon
the Bundestag, the German government, and the other German states to support
that initiatives and translate it into action. Those who refuse to do this
are perpetuating injustice.

Paragraph 175 retained validity, in its exact 1935 version, in the Federal
Republic of Germany until 1969. As such, even following the end of the Nazi
dictatorship, it has gravely affected perspectives of the lives of
homosexuals. We demand that the German Bundestag apologize for this
injustice and gives collective reparation, e.g. by the restoration of a
Magnus Hirschfeld Institute on Sex Research in Berlin. We demand individual
rehabilitation and compensation for all victims, anyway, if the injustice
was sustained before or after 1945.

Letters of support for these demands:
These are the addresses to send demands to: federal ministry of justice:

An die Bundesministerin der Justiz, Frau Prof. Dr. Herta Daeubler-Gmelin,
Jerusalemer Str. 24 - 28, 11015 Berlin, Germany

German Bundestag (Parliament) comittee on justice (addressed to the
chairman):

An den Vorsitzenden des Rechtsausschusses ,Herrn Prof. Dr. Rupert Scholz,
Deutscher Bundestag, 11011 Berlin,  Germany

We would appriciate to get copies of the letters:
LSVD Projekt Erinnern und Gedenken, Katzbachstr. 5, 10965 Berlin
e-mailto:<etz@...> and <guenter dworek@...>


AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE ON "ANTI-DISCRIMINATION" PACKAGE

Brussels, 13/03/2000 (Agence Europe) - The Social Affairs Council opened
work by providing its agreement in principle to the "anti-discrimination"
package proposed end-November by the European Commission.

Ministers hope that it will be adopted at the Social Council to be held in
June, thus before the Feira Summit. EUROPE recalls that this package
comprises:

a) a directive banning discrimination in matters of employment due to race,
racial or ethnic origin, religion or convictions, a disablement, age or
sexual orientation;

b) a directive banning discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin in
the field of work, education, access to goods or services, as well a social
protection and cultural activities;

c) a Community action programme (2001-2006) intended to support Member
States and complete the implementation of directives through information and
experience exchange and by the dissemination of good practices in
legislative and non-legislative fields.

Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: + 45 4049 5297

EURO-LETTER                No. 77 			     February 2000

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European Region
of the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and Lesbian
International Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National Association for
Gays and Lesbians.
Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen and
Soeren Baatrup.
Contact to Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@... URL:
http://www.steff.suite.dk Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45
2033 0840 Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610
Copenhagen V, Denmark
You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters
are available on the Internet at  http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and
at http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html


IN THIS ISSUE
HISTORIC VOTE AT COUNCIL OF EUROPE PROPOSES MEASURE TO COUNTER HOMOPHOBIA
LATVIA: Officials Reaction on Partnership Bill; Latvian Constituion Includes
Sexual Orientation and Draft Labour Code Includes Sexual orientation
BRITAIN LIFTS MILITARY GAY BAN
UKRAINIAN GAY AND LESBIAN CENTRE GETS STATE REGISTRATION


Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur/
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in
Europe can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm
A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding same-sex partners
can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm


HISTORIC VOTE AT COUNCIL OF EUROPE PROPOSES MEASURE TO COUNTER HOMOPHOBIA
Press release by ILGA-EUROPE

On Wednesday 26 January parliamentarians from across Europe voted to
recommend that sexual orientation be added to the list of prohibited grounds
of discrimination in a new legal instrument designed to strengthen the
anti-discrimination provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This historic development took place during the review by the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe of a draft protocol (draft Protocol No 12)
put forward by the Council's governing body, the Committee of Ministers,
with the intention of making good shortcomings in the existing
anti-discrimination provisions of the Convention.

Introducing the recommendation, Senator Jurgens of the Netherlands pointed
out that "many of the 41 member states of Europe still have oppressive
legislation against homosexuals, and only 11 have laws against such
discrimination". He went on to call for recognition that "many people, both
in public life and as private citizens, still consider the expression of
homophobic attitudes to be both legitimate and respectable; worse, some
think it is a ground for violence." And he stressed that this was a matter
of great seriousness: "we want to deal with this invidious and pernicious
form of discrimination, against which people need protection".

He was supported by speakers from Spain, Hungary, the United Kingdom,
Luxembourg, Italy, Belgium, Poland, and Turkey, including spokespersons for
the right of centre European People's Party, the left of centre Socialist
Group, and the centrist Liberal Group.  Of the major parties, only the
conservative European Democratic Group opposed the recommendation.

ILGA-Europe's female co-representative to the Council of Europe, Nico Beger,
warmly welcomed the Assembly's recommendation, and said that ILGA Europe
would urge the Committee of Ministers to take it up.  "The case law of the
European Court of Human Rights already recognises that sexual orientation
discrimination is in violation of the Convention. The problem, as Senator
Jurgens pointed out, is that for all too many people in public life,
homophobia is still "legitimate and respectable".

Nigel Warner, also of ILGA Europe, added: "The inclusion of "sexual
orientation" in the new Protocol to the Convention would make it clear that
sexual orientation discrimination is as odious and as pernicious as the
other grounds specifically mentioned, such as race, sex or religion."


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The verbatim report of the Assembly's opinion and debate can be found
at:http://stars.coe.fr/index_e.htm
The draft Protocol 12 can be found at
http://www.coe.fr/cm/dec/1999/677bis/42.htm
ILGA Europe's submission to the Council of Europe's Steering Committee on
Human Rights arguing for the inclusion of sexual orientation in the draft
Protocol can be found at: http://www.steff.suite.dk/art14.htm


LATVIA: Officials Reaction on Partnership Bill; Latvian Constituion Includes
Sexual Orientation and Draft Labour Code Includes Sexual orientation
By Juris Ludvigs Lavrikovs, Homosexuality Information Centre, Riga, Latvia

On 30 November 1999 the Human Rights and Public Affairs Commission of the
Saeima (Parliament) of the Republic of Latvia rejected the draft law "On
registered partnership between persons of the same gender" which was
submitted to the Commission by the Latvian National Human Rights Office
(LNHRO) on 28 September 1999. This draft law emerged from joint research
carried out by LNHRO and the Homosexuality Information Centre (HIC) on the
legal situation for lesbians and gay men in Latvia. The research concluded
that Latvian legislation discriminates on the grounds of sexual orientation,
and as a remedy to eliminate such discrimination a draft law allowing
registration of partnerships between persons of the same gender was
prepared.

Only two members of the Commission, representing the parliamentary fraction
"For Human Rights in an Integrated Latvia", Mr Boriss Cilevics and Mr
Miroslavs Mitrofanovs, supported the proposal to send the draft law to the
Saeima for discussion. The other 8 members of the Commission (Mr Antons
Seiksts, Ms Viola Lazo, Mr Peteris Tabuns, Ms Silvija Dreimane, Mr Ilmars
Geige, Mr Janis Leja, Mr Juris Galerijs Vidins, Ms Erika Zommere) rejected
the proposal. One member (Ms Inese Birzniece) was not present, owing to a
business trip.

Previously, at its meeting on 5 October, members of the Parliamentary
Commission on Human Rights and Public Affairs had decided to send the draft
law to the Legal Office of the Saeima (Parliament) for its conclusion on
whether the proposed draft law complies with Latvian legislation and
international human rights obligations and whether equality on grounds of
sexual orientation is guaranteed in Latvia. At the same time the Commission
sent the draft law to the Justice, Interior, Finance, Welfare, Science and
Education Ministries for their conclusions.

A translation of the conclusion of the Parliamentary Legal Office is given
below.

Legal Office of the Saeima (Parliament) of the Republic of Latvia 16
November 1999 12/17-254

To Human Rights and Public Affairs Commission

Following receipt of a letter from your Commission the Legal Office examined
the draft law "On registered partnership between persons of the same gender"
prepared by the Latvian National Human Rights Office and considered whether
existing legislation provides equality on grounds of a person's sexual
orientation.

The first part of the conclusion sets out the Legal Office's opinion
regarding the draft law. The second part examines whether Latvian
legislation provides equality on grounds of a person's sexual orientation
and whether there is a need for amendments to the existing legislation.

I The Legal Office examined the draft law from three points of view:

1) the usefulness of the draft law;
2) whether the draft law complies with the standards of international law
which are binding on Latvia;
3) whether the draft law is in compatible with existing legislation in
Latvia.

1. Usefulness of the draft law
Existing legislation in general does not regulate personal relations between
persons of the same gender. Therefore the fact that two homosexual persons
live together does not have legal consequences. Nor does legislation make
any special provision for the regulation of individual issues (for example
in the social sphere or in regard to  immigration rules). Therefore, the
general rules are applied to homosexual persons living together in regard to
the full range of legal issues.

At the moment persons of the same gender can sign mutual contracts and
regulate civil and legal relations (for example, leave property to a partner
by will or regulate mutual property relations by signing a contract of
association). Therefore, according to existing legislation, partnerships
between persons of the same gender are not recognised by the State in terms
of public law, however, the possibility exists for the partners to define
their mutual relations in terms of private law.

Under the draft law prepared by the Latvian National Human Rights Office,
partnerships between persons of the same gender would be legalised and
private contracts would no longer be the only option for defining mutual
relations. Granting the same rights and obligations to registered partners
as to married persons, the law would recognise the partnerships of persons
of the same sex as having legal effect.

The Legal Office has also considered whether the chosen form of
legislation - a law - is the most appropriate way of regulating this issue.
Taking account of the nature of the legal relations which form the basis of
the draft law, the conclusion is that a law is the most logical option.

In examining the usefulness of any draft law it is very helpful to consider
to how wide a circle of people the draft law would apply. The Legal Office
does not possess any data regarding how many homosexual persons there are in
Latvia who could and would wish to make use of the right to registered
partnership provided by the draft law. However in this case it has to be
borne in mind that data about a person's sexual orientation belongs to the
most intimate sphere of a person's life and is protected by the right to
privacy. Consequently, every person has a right not to reveal such data and
in such circumstances statistics cannot reflect the real situation.

Because the draft law touches upon issues of a moral nature, before deciding
whether to support or reject this it, it would be useful to find out
society's attitudes. However, society's attitudes cannot be the only
consideration for such a decision, since the Saeima (Parliament) has a
right, in the interests of the State or in the interests of a particular
group in society, to define standards concerning which society in general
does not have a united view.

On the international level, human rights are in constant development and
some of the relations between the State and individuals are gradually
evolving in favour of individuals. This is of the essence of human rights
and the principles of the democratic State.

Partnerships between persons of the same gender in different States are
subject to different regulations. One means of regulation is to allow
persons of the same gender to register their partnerships and some States
have already chosen this path.

Important too is the issue of what would be the de facto legal effect of
supporting or rejecting the draft law. The Legal Office cannot evaluate
whether, if the draft law were rejected, the number of homosexual persons
would decrease, or conversely, if it were supported the number would rise.
Similarly, the Legal Office cannot evaluate whether supporting the draft law
would increase and rejection it decrease the number of homosexual couples
actually living together.

We acknowledge that there may also be other arguments which bear upon the
usefulness of the draft law (for example its possible impact on the budget).

Taking into account the complexity of the subject regulated by the draft
law, the Legal Office cannot uniformly answer how useful it would be to
support it.  The abovementioned considerations should be regarded as
elements which need to be taken into account when deciding in principle the
issue of the usefulness of the draft law.

2. The draft law's compliance with the standards of international law
Latvia is a signatory to a number of international human rights documents.
Significant in relation to the right of persons of the same gender to
register their partnerships are the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights ("the Covenant") and the European Convention on Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention").

Neither the Covenant nor the Convention provide a clear formulation of a
right for homosexual persons to register their relationships.

Although the appropriate terminology is not used, the draft law in fact
equates partnerships between persons of the same gender with marriage.
Article 23 of the Covenant and Article 12 of the Convention state that men
and women have a right to marry and found a family. Within the framework of
the Convention, discussion on whether this right applies to transsexuals,
that is, persons who during their lives have changed their sex, has already
started (See Rees v UK, A.106 (1986); Cossey v UK, A.184 (1990). In the
Cossey case, see especially the Report of the Commission (A.184, p.51) and
the dissenting opinion of Judge Marten (A.184, p.33)). This Article does not
apply to homosexual persons.

Article 17 of the Covenant and Article 8 of the Convention provide everyone
with a right to privacy. A person's sexual orientation most decidedly
belongs to a person's privacy. Therefore homosexual persons' complaints to
the European Court of Human Rights are based on claims that the rights to
privacy and family life enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention have been
violated in various ways by States. Despite the fact that the Convention is
a "living instrument" and understanding of the substance of this right as it
relates to persons with homosexual orientation has changed in various
aspects (Dudgeon v UK, A.45 (1981) and Norris v Ireland, A.142 (1988). The
European Court of Human Rights declared that State legislation criminalising
homosexual relations between adults persons violates the right to privacy.
Further development is seen in the case of Sutherland v UK (Report of the
Commission of 1 July 1997) in which the Commission stepped away from its
previous case law and expressed its view that
establishing different age for relations between homosexual persons (18
years) and between heterosexual persons (16 years) as criminally punishable
acts discriminatorily violates the right to privacy. The Commission based
this report on the development of modern views, especially the views of
medical doctors (para.60). At the moment the case is being considered by the
Court), the case law of the European Court of Human Rights has not developed
so far as to consider non-recognition by the State of partnerships of
persons of the same gender as a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

Within the framework of the European Union there is no unified catalogue of
human rights  which is binding on the Member States. Moreover, binding
rulings have not been adopted in regard to the right of persons of the same
gender to register their partnerships. The States are legally free to
determine whether or not persons of the same gender may register their
partnerships.

After the Treaty of Amsterdam comes into force, Article 13 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community will state, acting on a proposal from
the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, the Council may
take action to combat discrimination based, among other things, on sexual
orientation. Up to now, no documents legally binding on Member States have
been adopted which stipulate that a prohibition on the registration of
relationships between persons of the same gender is regarded as
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

Therefore, international human rights as they have developed to date do not
legally obligate States to recognise the right of persons of the same sex to
register their partnerships. On the other hand, States are not prevented
from registering such partnerships, since international documents contain
minimum standards on human rights and each State has the right to define
more favourable rights for individuals or groups of individuals than those
provided for in international obligations.

3. The draft law's compatibility with the existing legislation system
Although the title of the draft law suggests that this law regulates only
the registration of partnerships between persons of the same gender, its
content is wider: it defines the partners' status after the registration of
their relationship and also regulates the dissolution of partnerships.

As already mentioned above, the draft law does not use the term "marriage"
in relation to partnerships between persons of the same gender. The draft
law provides that legislation regulating the registration and dissolution of
marriage shall be applied to the registration and dissolution of
partnerships between persons of the same gender (Article 2(1) and Article
4(1)). Also, after a partnership has been registered the partners will
acquire the same rights and obligations as married partners (Article3(1)),
and those laws and other normative acts which relate to marriage and married
partners will also apply to registered partnership and registered partners
(Article 3(2)). The only exception is that married persons' right to adopt a
child will not apply to registered partners (Article 3(3)). Therefore
registered partnership is in substance equated with marriage. At the same
time, Article 35 of the Civil Law states that marriage between persons of
the same gender is prohibited.

Because registered partnership is not called marriage, but according to the
draft law all laws and other normative acts regulating the institution of
marriage would be applied to registered partnership, there is a possibility
of contradictory interpretation - whether registered partnership is regarded
as marriage or such partnerships is a completely different form of personal
relationship. If partnerships are regarded as marriage, then the draft law
contradicts the Civil Law. To avoid such contradiction it is necessary
either to make appropriate changes or to define a special procedure for the
registration and dissolution of partnerships between persons of the same
gender.

The draft law does not stipulate whether partners in a registered
partnership have at the same time a right to register marriage with a person
of the opposite gender. Article 64 of the Civil Law states that marriage is
considered invalid if at the time of its registration one of the persons was
in another marriage. Similarly, according to Article 3(1) of the draft law
partners can form only one partnership. It is not clear whether in such
circumstances it should be considered whether registered partners are
permitted to be married to a person of the opposite gender.

Taking the above into account, we consider that it is necessary to resolve
these issues conceptually.

4. Conclusion on the draft law
Firstly, according to existing international human rights standards and
existing case law, a State does not have a legal obligation to recognise
partnerships between persons of the same gender. Therefore Latvia has
freedom of action in resolving the issue of registration of partnerships
between persons of the same gender, which should be settled in accordance
with the considerations mentioned in this document.

Secondly, if the Commission considers that partnerships between persons of
the same gender require legal regulation, then the most appropriate form is
a law.

Thirdly, the draft law "On registration of partnerships of persons of the
same gender" allows for divergent interpretations and it is therefore not
clear whether partnership is considered as marriage or is a completely
different form of personal relationship. If partnership is considered as
marriage, then the draft law contradicts the Civil Law. At the same time, if
partnerships between persons of the same gender are a different form of
personal relationship, then a detailed definition of the substance of
partnership and the stipulation of a special procedure for the registration
and dissolution of such a relationship would be required, instead of
employing the provisions regulating the registration and dissolution of
marriage contained in the Civil Law.

II Prohibition of discrimination in various legal relations, as an integral
element of human rights, is one of the bases of democratic society.
According to Article 1 of the Satversme (Latvian Constitution) Latvia is a
democratic state and it arises from this Article that equality of all people
is provided for in Latvia at the constitutional level. Further, according to
the existing hierarchy of law in Latvia, relevant legislation directly
prohibiting discrimination will be examined.

Article 91 of the Satversme stipulates that all people are equal before the
law and the courts and that human rights shall be implemented without any
discrimination.  Therefore, complementary to Article 1 of the Satversme,
Article 91 also directly stipulates that discrimination on all grounds is
prohibited, consequently also on grounds of sexual orientation. If a law
makes a different stipulation, then it contradicts the Satversme and cannot
be enforced.

Both the Covenant "On Civil and Political Rights" and the Covenant "On
Economic and Cultural Rights", as also the European Convention on Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, contain norms prohibiting discrimination on
various grounds. Defining prohibition of discrimination as a constant right
(Article 26 of the Covenant "On Civil and Political Rights") or prohibiting
discrimination in regard to rights protected in an international treaty
(Article 2 of the Covenant "On Economical and Cultural Rights"; Article 14
of the European Convention on Human Rights), sexual orientation is not
mentioned as one of the grounds. However, in substance it is included
because neither of the abovementioned international treaties provide
detailed list of grounds on the basis of which discrimination is prohibited.

At the moment existing legislation has a dual approach regarding the grounds
on the basis of which discrimination is not permitted in various legal
relations. One set of laws mentioning grounds leaves an open-ended list,
while another set of laws provides a closed list. The latter is considered
to contradict Articles 1 and 91 of the Satversme and the abovementioned
international treaties. To prevent such contradiction of Articles 1 and 91
of the Satversme and the international treaties and also to clarify possible
doubts regarding which laws are to be applied, amendments to the following
laws are required:
Article 1 of the Latvian Code of Labour Laws;
Articles 4(2) and 51(2) of the law "On the power of the courts";
Article 2 of the law "On Social Security";
Article 3 of the Education Law;
Article 11(3) of the law "On private pension funds";
Article 3(1) of the law "On Cooperative Society".

To ensure that these laws comply with the Satversme and international
treaties it is suggested that they be amended so that they do not contain
closed lists of grounds on which discrimination is not permitted, rather
than amending them by inserting an additional ground - sexual orientation.

In our view a discussion on Articles 160, 161 and 162 of the Criminal Law is
also necessary, to clarify whether equal treatment regardless of sexual
orientation is safeguarded. (These articles regulate sexual offences and
define age of consent, J.L.L.)

Regarding those laws which, in various legal relations, define different
rules for homosexual couples and heterosexual married couples, see the
conclusion on the draft law. At the moment discrimination in the form of
different regulations is not considered to be discrimination in the
interpretation of legally binding human rights standards.

Director of the Legal Office
G. Kusins

Like the Parliamentary Legal Office, Minister of Justice Dr Valdis Birkavs,
in his conclusion, identified similarities between the institution of
marriage and the proposed institution of registered partnership. In his view
the aim of the draft law in substance is to abolish Article 35(2) of the
Civil Law which prohibits marriage between persons of the same gender.  The
Minister writes that indirect legalisation of marriage between persons of
the same gender is the most radical means of abolishing discrimination on
grounds of sexual orientation and destroys the traditional meaning of
marriage. He questions whether it would not be possible to eliminate
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation by other means, such as
anti-discrimination provisions, and suggests that the draft partnership law
not be adopted, but instead that those laws which have been identified by
the Latvian National Human Rights Office as discriminatory on the grounds of
sexual orientation be amended.

The Minister also adds that the prepared draft Labour Law contains a
provision prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

In the view of the Ministry of Justice, the Constitutional Court is the body
most competent to deliver an answer, in the form of a judgement, as to
whether Latvian legislation provides equality regardless of sexual
orientation and whether amendments to existing laws are needed.

In its conclusion, signed by State Secretary Mr A. Sraris, the Ministry of
the Interior did not in principle support the proposed draft law on
registered partnership, without giving any reasons. The Ministry of the
Interior provided a list of comments, identifying the in their view unclear
or mistaken provisions of the draft law. The Ministry also suggested that a
working group should be created in the case where a decision to support the
draft law was adopted by the Parliamentary Commission.

Minister of Welfare Mr R. Jurdzs did not support further discussion on the
draft law on registered partnership, and argued that society is not
sufficiently tolerant on issues of human rights in various areas.  He also
suggested that in the improvement of Latvian legislation, the experience of
European democracies has shown that it is very important to preserve each
nation's traditional and historical understanding of marriage and family and
their values. In the view of the Ministry of Welfare the first steps in
discussion of the issue of registered partnership should be education of
society and research on the experience of democratic States, while at the
same time preserving the traditional historical values of the Latvian State
and nation.

Minister of Finance Mr E. Krastins did not give his Ministry's conclusion,
since he could not tell what the impact of the adoption of the draft law on
the State budget would be.

Minister of Education and Science Ms S. Golde doubted that, without a broad
analysis of the sociological, social and cultural aspects of registered
partnership between persons of the same gender, this issue was timely from
the point of view of Latvian society. She expressed the Ministry's view that
the suggested draft law is not in accordance with the predominant
understanding of marriage and family in Latvia. Moreover, she added that the
concept of the draft law contradicts the cultural and everyday traditions of
Latvian society and that there is no social or psychological need for the
adoption of such a law.

Thus the draft law "On registered partnership of persons of the same gender"
has not reached the stage of discussion in Parliament.

The Latvian National Human Rights Office and the Homosexuality Information
Centre have already prepared an alternative draft law which provides for an
amendment the Latvian Civil Law inserting a new section "Registered
Partnership" and further amendments to a number of other laws relating to
marriage and married partners, in order for them to cover registered
partnership and registered partners.

Negotiations with the parliamentary fraction "For Human Rights in Integrated
Latvia" on the introduction of the alternative draft law, together with
legislation which would outlaw discrimination on grounds of sexual
orientation, have been opened by the Homosexuality Information Centre, and
it is believed that these drafts will be put forward for consideration
directly to the Saeima (Parliament) by MPs from this fraction.


BRITAIN LIFTS MILITARY GAY BAN
By Rex Wockner

Britain lifted its ban on gays in the military Jan. 12, implementing a Sept.
27 European Court of Human Rights ruling that the policy violated
servicemembers' rights to privacy and family life.

"Homosexuality will no longer be a bar to service in Britain's armed
forces," said Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon. "The law is the law. We cannot
choose the decisions we implement. ... There is no longer a reason to deny
homosexuals the opportunity of a career in the armed forces. ... The status
quo is not an option."

Like heterosexual servicemembers, gay servicemembers will be prohibited from
engaging in behavior while on duty that undermines the "efficiency or
operational effectiveness" of the armed forces -- such as unwanted sexual
come-ons, offensive displays of affection, or taking advantage of a
subordinate.

People who have been kicked out of the military for being gay are being
invited to rejoin.


UKRAINIAN GAY AND LESBIAN CENTRE GETS STATE REGISTRATION
By Andriy Maymulakhin

Nash Mir (Our World) Gay and Lesbian Centre has been registered as
non-governmental organisation in Ukraine. The certificate No. 408 of
November 30, 1999, was issued by the Department of Justice in Lugansk
Region.

The state registration of the first openly gay&lesbian organisation is an
extremely important precedent for Ukraine. Main goals of the organisation
mentioned in the Statute are:

assistance to defence of human rights and freedoms of homosexuals and
improvement of their legal defence, fight against sexual orientation
discrimination;
assistance to improvement of society's attitude towards homosexuality and
homosexuals, reduction of homophobic sentiments in societal consciousness;
assistance to upbringing of gays' and lesbians' self-consciousness as equal
and valuable members of society.

Our World Centre was established on December 27, 1998, and has passed a long
way for its recognition in the state.

After illegal delays while examining the Centre's statute documents the
Department of Justice in April of 1999 denied us state registration. The
wording of denial called the reason for denial discrepancy of the Statute's
provisions to Ukrainian law. Formally the denial did not touch gay issues.

However other evidences and officials' statements particularly indicated
that the authorities just did not want to recognise officially an
organisation for defence of gay&lesbian rights.

Of course we did not give up. Our question had been analysed by
high-professional lawyers who did not find the reasoning of the Department
satisfactory. Basing on these conclusions the founders of the Centre sued
the Department of Justice. However virtually all lawyers knowing the reality
of the current Ukrainian court system did not consider this variant as good
enough. Courts indirectly but quite strongly depend on bodies of justice.

Preliminary hearing of the case in a district court revealed that we had a
very little chance to win the case.

Along with the court examination our organisation draw attention of advanced
world community to the appeared problem as a part of wider problems of
non-observance of gays' and lesbians' equality in Ukrainian society.

We are very grateful for great help that we obtained from:

Amnesty International which carried out a campaign for support of Our World
Centre. As far as we know the Ministry and the Department of Justice have
received lots of letters from all the world which called to them to
registrate our organisation;
Ukrainian branch of Soros Foundation Network (Renaissance Foundation) which
lobbied our question in the Ministry of Justice and render legal assistance
to us;
ILGA-Europe which promoted to draw attention of the Council of Europe to our
problems.

Unfortunately despite all our appeals we got virtually no support from
Ukrainian human rights organisations. Only Ukrainian section of the
International Society for Human Rights supported us in the country.

Eventually the authorities have seen that it is impossible anymore to evade
granting gays and lesbians the same rights, including the right of
associations, which the other citizens have.

Because of all these efforts of Our World Centre and its huge support, the
authorities were compelled to recognise and registrate officially our
organisation.

Our experience clearly shows that there is a lot of work to do to achieve
real equality for gays and lesbians in Ukrainian society.

We thank all who supported us in our struggle and hope for your help and
co-operation in the future.

Our contact details are:
Our World Gay and Lesbian Centre
Postal address: PO Box 62, Lugansk 91051, UKRAINE
Tel./fax: +380-642-479422
e-mail: ourworld@...

"Nash Mir" (Our World) magazine in Internet:
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/2118/

**************************************************'



Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: + 45 4049 5297

EURO-LETTER  No. 76 		     January 2000

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European Region
of the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and Lesbian
International Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National Association for
Gays and Lesbians.
Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen and
Soeren Baatrup.
Contact to Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@... URL:
http://www.steff.suite.dk Fax: +45 4049 5297
Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033 0840 Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl.
Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V, Denmark
You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters
are available on the Internet at  http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and
at http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html


IN THIS ISSUE
Germany: REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP BILL PUBLISHED
LITHUANIAN PENAL CODE DRAFT INCLUDES SEXUAL ORIENTATION
ILGA-EUROPE CONTINUES LOBBYING THE EUROPEAN UNION
JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA v. PORTUGAL
NO TO REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP IN CZECH REPUBLIC
IRELAND BANS DISCRIMINATION
LATVIA KILLS PARTNER MEASURE

Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur/
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in
Europe can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm
A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding same-sex partners
can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm


Germany: REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP BILL PUBLISHED
By Gerald Pilz

The ministry of justice in Berlin has published the official bill for the
registered partnership. It is a first draft and includes only some aspects.
Many GLBT organizations critized this first draft because it excludes
important rights.

Summary of the registered partnership bill:

The law will be called registered partnership law
(Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz - abbreviation: LPartG).

1. The registered partnership will be declared at the registrar's office
(the same procedure as for straight marriages - church weddings as an
institution with legal consequences do not exist in Germany, they have only
a symbolic meaning). Persons who are already married or are registered are
not admitted to the registered partnership. The same applies to minors,
close relatives, sisters and brothers, and people with a restricted mental
capability, who are not allowed to sign legal contracts.

2.Legal consequences of the registered partnership The partner can determine
a common name for the registered partnership (for example: if Thomas Maier
and Michael Schmid are registered Thomas can chose a name: Thomas Maier,
Thomas Schmid, Thomas Maier-Schmid, Thomas Schmid-Maier).

During the partnership and after a divorce the partners are obliged to grant
maintenance for the livelihood if the other partner is ill or unable to
work.

The registered partners can choose a property status. There are three
possibilities: a common property status (in the case of a divorce every
partner gets 50 percent), a separate property status (after a divorce
everyone keeps his own property and earnings) and an acquired property
status (after a divorce only the property and the income acquired during the
partnership is shared). For straight marriages the legislator provides the
acquired property status as the regular status. For registered partnerships
the separate property status is the regular one. If the couple wants to
change the regular status and choose another, they need a public notary
contract for this change.

If one partner dies, the other will get one forth of the estate. Normally
the widows/widowers of a straight marriage get 50 percent. In registered
partnershiphs it would be necessary to mention this explicitly in the last
will.

GLBT organizations think that it does not make sense to use other legal
provisions for registered partnerships. It could be to the detriment for the
same-sex couples and lead to discrimination. A divorce will be conducted at
the same court as for straight marriages. Concerning the tenant's lease for
apartments the legal provisions for straight marriages will be applied to
the registered partnerships (with one exemption). Registered partners are
entitled to deny to testify against each other in a criminal trial.

All other important legal aspects like taxation laws (joint taxation,
inheritance taxes), social insurances (health insurance, pensions)and
immigration rights for binational couples (residence permits, labour
permits) have not been added to the draft. The ministry of justice explained
in a short reference that other ministries are responsible for these legal
provisions (like the ministry for home affairs, the ministry for labour
issues).

Many GLBT organizations are rather disappointed that this draft does not
lead to a real equality and that it does not include a comprehensive
solution for registered partnerships. You can find the bill for registered
partnerships (more than 10 pages in German) at the website of the Lesbian
and Gay Association (LSVD): http://www.lsvd.de (section Aktuelles - Aktuelle
Infos).


LITHUANIAN PENAL CODE DRAFT INCLUDES SEXUAL ORIENTATION
By Eduardas Platovas, LGL Vilnius

Lithuanian Ministry Of Justice published a revised version of the new draft
Penal Code. Article 160 "Discrimination on the basis of nationality, race,
sex, origin, religion or other group membership" provides for imprisonment
of up to 3 years for "acts, which were aimed to prevent population group or
its member to participate equally in political, economical, social, cultural
or work activity because of their nationality, race, sex, sexual
orientation, origin, religion or other group membership". Although the
authors omit "sexual orientation" in the article's title it is included in
the text for the first time in the legal history of the country.

Article 161 of the draft document "Instigation against national, racial,
ethnic, religious or other population group" provides for up to 3 years
imprisonment for persons and companies which jeer, disdain or otherwise show
bias towards belonging to national, racial, ethnic, religious or other
population group. Lithuanian Vice-Minister`of Justice Gintaras Svedas told
BNS news agency , that notion "other population group" also comprises sexual
minorities.

Earlier Vice-Minister of Justice also acknowledged that under the current
Penal Code of Lithuania the age of consent for heterosexuals and lesbians is
16 and for gay men 18 years of age. "Such regulation has also caused
criticism of Lithuanian lawyers - a voluntary satisfaction of sexual lust
between pubescent men can not be rated as a crime, since in this case there
is no violation of sexual self-determination or inviolability" Vice-Minister
Gintaras Svedas wrote in his explanation to European Committee of Seimas
(Parliament). He told BNS news agency, that the new draft Penal Code does
not contain such discriminatory regulation.

The first draft of the new Penal Code (published in 1996) did not include
"sexual orientation", "other group" or related terms to protect lesbians and
gays. Lithuanian Gay League responded to Parliament and Government
institutions with non-discriminatory legislation campaign supported by
mainstream media.

It is expected that the new Penal Code will be adopted by the Lithuanian
Seimas (Parliament) this year. Hopefully, the provisions to protect lesbians
and gays will be passed although they might be opposed by the Conservative
and Christian Democrat majority coalition.

Another Vice-Minister of Justice Rasa Budbergyte recently commented on same
sex marriages. She said, that Lithuanian society is not ready to accept same
sex marriages. A new draft of the Civil Code specifically bans same sex
marriage by Article 3.12 of book 3 "Ban to marry for same sex persons".

"The majority of people in Lithuania are Roman Catholics and maintain
antagonistic attitude towards homosexuality", she told BNS.


ILGA-EUROPE CONTINUES LOBBYING THE EUROPEAN UNION
By Kurt Krickler

In the past few weeks, ILGA-Europe has undertaken a couple of activities in
pursuing two aims at the European Union level: the comprehensive
implementation of measures based on the anti-discrimination clause, Article
13, of the EC Treaty (cf. Euro-Letter # 74 and # 75) and the explicit
inclusion of "sexual orientation" in an anti-discrimination clause in the
planned EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to be prepared during the next
intergovernmental conference and presented to the EU Summit in Paris in
December 2000. As a result of ILGA-Europe's continuous and consistent
activities over the past three years, the association is increasingly
recognised as the lesbian and gay lobby in Brussels.

Meeting with Finnish EU Presidency
On 10 November 1999, ILGA-Europe representatives met with high officials of
the Finnish Foreign Ministry in Helsinki to discuss these two issues. While
the Finnish Government in principle is supportive of these demands, they
seem to tend to support the idea of the European Union signing up to the
European Human Rights Convention. They obviously doubt that there would be
unanimity between all member states to incorporate a binding Charter into
the EU Treaty. Some governments prefer this "Bill of Rights" to only become
a non-binding declaration describing the status quo. Signing the Convention
by the Union as such would thus to be a kind of compromise. In this meeting,
ILGA-Europe was also invited to participate in the First EU Human Rights
Discussion Forum which the Finnish Presidency organised in Brussels on 30
November and 1 December 1999.

Having meetings with the EU presidency, by the way, has become almost a
tradition for ILGA-Europe. Such meetings took already place with
representatives of the Austrian EU Presidency in Vienna in July 1998 and
with the German one in Bonn in May 1999.

Participation in the EU Human Rights Discussion Forum
The Forum gathered a quite exclusive circle of 150 participants,
representatives from member states, the EU institutions, academic
institutions, and from a small number of NGOs. Finnish Foreign Minister
Tarja Halonen opened the conference. The first EU Annual Report on Human
Rights was presented. It was drawn up following the relevant Vienna Council
Declaration of 10 December 1998 (cf. Euro-Letter 74). Nigel Warner, one of
ILGA-Europe's representatives to the Council of Europe, had prepared a paper
on "Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Member States of the European Union
and the Accession Countries" which was distributed at the Forum. Co-chair
Kurt Krickler represented ILGA-Europe and actively participated in the
discussions of working group III on racism and non-discrimination which
focussed on the implementation of Article 13.

Hearing in the European Parliament
ILGA-Europe was also invited to participate - as one of about 25 European
and international NGOs - in the "preparatory hearing with a view to the 1999
debate on an area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ)" organised by the
European Parliament's Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice
and Home Affairs in Brussels on 30 November 1999 and to which also
representatives of the national parliaments were invited. ILGA-Europe's
document "Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Member States of the European
Union and the Accession Countries", together with a written contribution,
was distributed in the hearing. Kurt Krickler took the floor in the session
dealing with the "Implementation of the area of freedom, security and
justice: current position and prospects" (see the full text of his statement
below).

Participation at Citizens' Agenda 2000 NGO-Forum
With the support of the Finnish Government and the Finnish EU Presidency,
Finnish and European NGOs organised a huge Forum of the civil society in
Tampere from 3-5 December 1999. It gathered around 1,500 representatives
from a wide range of NGOs. ILGA-Europe was represented by board members
Isabelle Cruette and Kurt Krickler and, together with EuroLink Age, had
prepared and presented a theme seminar on Article 13. For the various
members of the Platform of European Social NGOs working with this issue, the
seminar was a good opportunity to exchange first views on the proposals to
implement Article 13 which the European Commission had just approved a week
earlier. Co-operation and joint campaigning of all Platform members
concerned are important and crucial to successfully lobby for a
comprehensive implementation of Article 13. Already last October, the
Platform had adopted and conveyed to the Commission a common response to the
Commission's draft proposals on a framework action plan and two directives
to implement Article 13. In this common response, the Platform, in complete
accordance with ILGA-Europe's position, demands that directives to prohibit
discrimination must include all grounds listed in Article 13 and cover all
areas of EU competence.

Participation in other Platform activities
Since the Platform of European Social NGOs has become an important ally,
literally a "platform" for ILGA-Europe to pursue its goals and to enhance
the impact of its lobbying activities, ILGA-Europe is keen to intensify the
networking with the Platform members. To this end, ILGA-Europe participated
also in the European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN)'s conference on "national
and European policies to combat poverty and social exclusion" (Helsinki, 8-9
November 1999) and in the Platform's conference "Civil Dialogue and the
European Union: Strengthening Social Cohesion" (Lisbon, 18-19 November 1999)
which was not only marked by strong Portuguese NGO participation but also by
strong participation of high-level Portuguese politicians.

The Platform has also started to initiate national conferences to facilitate
the networking and exchange of information between the national member
organisations of the various Platform members. ILGA-Europe member Fundación
Triángulo participated in such a conference for Spanish NGOs held in Madrid
on 12 November 1999, in which Article 13 once again was an important topic
discussed.


STATEMENT of ILGA-Europe in the "preparatory hearing with a view to the 1999
debate on an area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ)" of the European
Parliament's Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home
Affairs:

"Before addressing two important issues for lesbians and gay men in the
context of a European area of freedom, security and justice, I would like to
make some remarks to the statement of the representative of the British
House of Commons who complained that Europe wants to decide upon the
composition of her Majesty's armed forces, however without specifying the
background. He obviously refers to a recent decision of the European Court
of Human Rights which ruled that the ban on lesbians and gays to serve in
the British army constitutes a violation of the European Human Rights
Convention. I find it really puzzling that he is questioning the decision of
the Court in such a way. We normally hear such arguments from the Chinese
government complaining about interference in internal matters when reminded
of human rights. Human rights definitely is an area where the principle of
subsidiarity is not acceptable. It's not up to each state to define human
rights for itself. I wonder whether the representative of the British
Parliament would consider it all right if Jews or black people were excluded
from serving in a country's army – as it has occurred in history.

There are two things I want to stress in this discussion about an area of
freedom, security and justice. There cannot be a real, genuine such area if
gays and lesbians continue to be discriminated against. This discrimination
varies considerably in the Member States of the Union and the accession
countries but I will not go into the details here. ILGA-Europe has prepared
a written contribution for this hearing with a survey of sexual orientation
discrimination in the Member States of the European Union and the accession
countries. Copies of it have been made available in this room. I just want
to stress that the discrimination of lesbians and gays also constitutes a
severe obstacle to the free movement of persons, especially for same-sex
couples legally registered in one Member State. If they would like to move
to another Member State without similar legislation, they would lose their
status as a quasi married couple and be considered as complete strangers to
each other. This is completely unacceptable.

The other issue I wanted to comment on is the Charter of Fundamental Rights
which the Union is planning to prepare during the next intergovernmental
conference and which has already been mentioned a couple of times this
morning. We strongly believe that such a Charter must be more than just a
declaration, it must be incorporated into the Treaties to become
enforceable, and such a Charter must contain an anti-discrimination clause
modelled after Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty that makes explicit
mention of "sexual orientation" as one non-discrimination ground."


JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA v. PORTUGAL
Press release issued by the Registrar of the European Human Rights Court

In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 21 December 1999 in the case of
Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, the European Court of Human Rights
held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to
respect for private and family life) taken together with Article 14
(prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights,
and that it was unnecessary to rule on the complaints made under Article 8
taken alone. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the
Court held that the judgment constituted of itself sufficient just
satisfaction for the damage alleged by the applicant; it awarded him
1,800,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) for costs and PTE 350,000 for expenses.

1. Principal facts
The applicant, João Manuel Salgueiro da Silva Mouta, a Portuguese national,
was born in 1961 and lives in Queluz (Portugal).

He was prevented by his ex-wife from visiting his daughter M., in breach of
an agreement reached at the time of their divorce. He sought an order giving
him parental responsibility for the child, which was granted by the Lisbon
Family Affairs Court in 1994. M. lived with the applicant until 1995 when,
he alleges, she was abducted by her mother. On appeal, the mother was given
parental responsibility whereas the applicant was granted a contact order
which, he maintained, he was unable to exercise. The Lisbon Court of Appeal
gave two reasons in its judgment for granting parental responsibility for M.
to her mother, namely the interest of the child and the fact that the
applicant was a homosexual and living with another man.

2. Procedure and composition of the Court
The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on
12 February 1996.

The case was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998 under the
transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention and declared
admissible on 1 December 1998. A hearing was held on 28 September 1999 in
private.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), President,
Georg Ress (German),
Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish),
Lucius Caflisch (Swiss),
Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish),
Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese),
Nina Vajic (Croatian), Judges,
and also Vincent Berger, Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment Complaints
The applicant complained of an unjustified interference with his right to
respect for his private and family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the
Convention and discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. He
maintained, too, that contrary to Article 8 he had been forced by the court
of appeal to hide his homosexuality when seeing his daughter.
Decision of the Court

Article 8 taken together with Article 14 of the Convention
The Court noted at the outset that under the case-law of the Convention
institutions Article 8 applied to decisions concerning granting parental
responsibility for a child to one of the parents on a divorce or separation.
The judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal constituted an interference with
the applicant's right to respect for his family life in that it had reversed
the judgment of the Lisbon Family Affairs Court granting parental
responsibility to the applicant.

The Court went on to observe that although the court of appeal had
considered the interest of the child in deciding to reverse the judgment of
the Lisbon Family Affairs Court and, consequently, to grant parental
responsibility to the mother rather than the father, it had had regard to a
new factor, namely the fact that the applicant was a homosexual and living
with another man. There had therefore been a difference in treatment between
the applicant and M.'s mother based on the applicant's sexual orientation, a
notion that fell within Article 14 of the Convention. Such a difference in
treatment was discriminatory under that provision if it had no objective or
reasonable justification, that is if it did not pursue a legitimate aim or
if there was not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the
means employed and the aim sought to be realised.
The court of appeal had pursued a legitimate aim in reaching its decision,
namely the protection of the child's health and rights. In order to decide
whether there was no reasonable basis for the decision that was finally
made, the Court examined whether the new factor taken into account by the
Lisbon Court of Appeal - the applicant's homosexuality - was a mere obiter
dictum with no direct impact on the final decision, or whether, on the
contrary, it was a decisive factor. To that end, the Court reviewed the
Lisbon Court of Appeal's judgment and noted that after finding that there
were no sufficient reasons for depriving the mother of parental
responsibility - which the parents had agreed she should exercise - it had
gone on to say: "... even if that had not so, we consider that the mother
should be granted custody of the child". In so doing the court of appeal had
noted that the applicant was a homosexual and living with another man and
had stated: "the child must live in ... a traditional Portuguese family" and
"it is unnecessary to examine whether or not homosexuality is an illness or
a sexual orientation towards people of the same sex. Either way, it is an
abnormality and children must not grow up in the shadow of abnormal
situations".

The Court was of the view that those passages from the judgment of the
Lisbon Court of Appeal were not simply clumsy or unfortunate, or mere obiter
dicta; they suggested that the applicant's homosexuality had been decisive
in the final decision and thus amounted to a distinction dictated by factors
relating to the applicant's sexual orientation that it was not permissible
to draw under the Convention. That conclusion was supported by the fact
that, when ruling on the applicant's contact rights, the court of appeal had
discouraged the applicant from behaving during visits in a way that would
make the child aware that he was living with another man "as if they were
spouses".

The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 8 taken
together with Article 14.

Article 8 of the Convention taken alone
The Court held that it was unnecessary to rule on the alleged violation of
Article 8 taken alone as the case made out on that point was, in substance,
the same as that considered under Article 8 taken together with Article 14.

Article 41 of the Convention
The applicant had sought "just reparation" but had failed to quantify his
claim. In the circumstances, the Court held that the finding of a violation
in the judgment was of itself sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged
damage.

However, it awarded the applicant PTE 2,150,000 for costs and expenses.
The Court's judgments are accessible on its Internet site
(http://www.dhcour.coe.fr).

This judgment is not final. Under Article 43 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any
party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be
referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel
of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question
affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its
Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand
Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises,
the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes
final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the
three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend
to make a request to refer.


NO TO REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP IN CZECH REPUBLIC
By Miluska Kotisova

Czech Parliament (Prague) rejected December 2, 1999, the once again
redrafted bill on registered partnership for same sex couples, with 91 votes
against the proposal and 69 in favour. The bill was adamantly opposed by a
group of Christian Democrats led by the party´s Deputy Chairperson Cyril
Svoboda voicing the evergreen counterarguments such as "it would corrupt the
family values," "this law would become a forerunner of unaccaptable adoption
of children by homosexuals," including of course "this proposal is not
prepared well technically."  Mr. Zahradil, one of the bill´s co-writers,
considers these mere excuses and cover-ups of homophobia. He also concluded
that the working group would propose the bill again and again, although
given the current composition of the Parliament, he is rather sceptical.

Interestingly, Cyril Svoboda has no objections, as he stated during his
interview for the local glb radio programme "Bona Dea",  to the biological
parent keeping his/her child OR raising him/her with his/her homosexual
partner. Provided that the child comes before the partnership, NOT the other
way round!

SOHO, Czech glb association,  will definitely persevere with its lobbying
and cultural activities to further raise awareness. In a reaction to the
recent development, the lesbian activists are preparing a new, broader and
more intensive initiative to be presented to the MPs and the public alike at
the start of the year. It will also be available in English on the web.


IRELAND BANS DISCRIMINATION
By Rex Wockner

Ireland's new Employment Equality Act bans direct and indirect job
discrimination based on sexual orientation, the International Lesbian and
Gay Association reported Dec. 2.

The law also prohibits unwelcome, offensive, humiliating or intimidating
actions.

Religious institutions are exempt from the act in instances where it
conflicts with their teachings.


LATVIA KILLS PARTNER MEASURE
By Rex Wockner

Latvia's parliament rejected a gay registered-partnership bill Nov. 30.

The measure died in the Human Rights and Public Affairs Committee which
declined to send it to the full parliament.

"There is still a high level of intolerance in our society, manifesting
itself not only against homosexuals, but other groups, such as refugees, as
well," said MP Boris Cilevics. "This is dangerous for our democratic
development."

The bill was drafted by the national Human Rights Office as part of its
effort to reduce anti-gay discrimination.

EURO-LETTER No. 75 		 November 1999

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European Region
of the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and Lesbian
International Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National Association for
Gays and Lesbians.
Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen and
Soeren Baatrup.
Contact to Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@... URL:
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033 0840 Mail: c/o
Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V, Denmark
You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters
are available on the Internet at  http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and
at http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html


IN THIS ISSUE
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROPOSAL PACKAGE ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION
ILGA-EUROPE PRESS RELEASE
FRANCE/PaCS: LAW EFFECTIVE NOV. 17
Ireland: NEW EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT COMES INTO FORCE
STATUTORY COHABITATION CONTRACT IN BELGIUM
LANDMARK UK RULING ON INTERPREATION OF 'FAMILY'
Scotland: SCHOOL'S GAY BAN TO BE LIFTED
The Russian Federation has dropped "homosexual orientation" from its new
classification of mental and behaviour disorders

Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur/
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in
Europe can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm
A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding same-sex partners
can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm


ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROPOSAL PACKAGE ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION
25 November 1999

The European Commission has adopted this morning a Communication and three
proposals to combat discrimination in the European Union. Based on Article
13 of the EC Treaty, which gives the EU new powers in this field, the move
fulfils the Commission's undertaking to table measures implementing the
Article as early as possible and responds to the invitation from the
European Parliament and Member States - and most recently from EU leaders at
their meeting in Tampere. The package, which seeks to support and build upon
existing national provisions and to fill the gaps identified during the long
consultation process prior to adoption, consists of:

(i) a Directive prohibiting discrimination in employment. This proposal
outlaws discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion
or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation;
(ii) a Directive prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of racial or
ethnic origin in a wider range of areas - employment, education, the
provision of goods and services, social protection;
(iii) an action programme designed to support and complement implementation
of the Directives through the exchange of information and experience and the
dissemination of best practices in both legislative and non-legislative
areas.

The full text is avaiable here:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/news_fr.htm

ILGA-EUROPE PRESS RELEASE

ILGA-Europe, the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay
Association, the federation comprising over 300 lesbian and gay associations
all over Europe, welcomes today's decision of the European Commission to
adopt a package of measures based on Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty,
which will, inter alia, prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation,
as well as on other grounds, in the field of employment throughout the
European Union.

"The proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for
equal treatment in employment irrespective of sexual orientation, race or
ethnic origin, religion or belief, age and disability, is an essential step
to make effective the pledge to combat discrimination contained in Article
13"  - say Jackie Lewis and Kurt Krickler, ILGA-Europe Co-chairs.

"The prohibition of discrimination agaist lesbians and gays as well as
discrimination based on other grounds is the essence of the principle of
equality of every individual before the law, a principle which is the at the
very foundation of our society. Therefore, this principle cannot be limited
to certain areas of life, nor to certain grounds.

It will be up to the European Parliament, which is called to give its
opinion on the package in the next months, and to the Council which has to
adopt the measures, to support the Commission proposals and to complete
them, ensuring that discrimination based on all grounds listed in Article
13, including sexual orientation, is prohibited in other areas besides
employment, such as education, culture, access to goods and services, social
protection. Also, equal treatment of same-sex couples has to be
guaranteed." - say Alberto Volpato and Steffen Jensen, ILGA-Europe Board
members.

ILGA-Europe will continue its campaign together with the other members of
the Platform of European Social NGOs, for a full implementation of Article
13, for its strengthening at the EU Intergovernmental Conference next year
and for the inclusion of a general anti-discrimination clause in the future
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.


FRANCE/PaCS: LAW EFFECTIVE NOV. 17
By René Lallement

Following the ruling of the Constitutional Council which occurred on Nov. 9,
the law that institutes the civil solidarity pact (PaCS) was signed
yesterday Nov. 15 by President Chirac, Prime Minister Jospin and seven
ministers (social affairs, justice, interior, foreign affairs, economy,
housing, public administration) and published today in the Journal Officiel.
From now on, the PaCS is a law of the Republic.

A "user manual" has been released last week by the minister of Justice in
order to explain the content of the law, the registration process and to
specify the documents which must be provided. According to instructions sent
by Justice minister Elisabeth Guigou to the courts, the law is immediately
effective, without waiting for the government decrees (still necessary to
implement some provisions of the law). This means that couples may be
registrated tomorrow Nov. 17th.


Ireland: NEW EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT COMES INTO FORCE
Act extends protection to seven new grounds
By Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent Irish Times

The Employment Equality Act (1998), which came into force recently, replaces
the employment Equality Act of 1977.

That Act outlawed discrimination in employment or access to training on the
grounds of gender or marital status.

However, the new Employment Equality Act differs from its predecessor in
that it extends this protection to seven other grounds:
Family status, sexual orientation, religious belief, age, race, disability
and membership of the Traveller community.

Discrimination is described as treating one person in a less favourable way
than another person has been or would be treated.

Two types of discrimination are identified in the legislation. Direct
discrimination is straightforward - the less favourable treatment of one
individual when compared with another.

Indirect discrimination, however, may cause more problems for employers.
This covers requirements which may not appear to be discriminatory, but
which
  adversely affect a particular class or group of people covered by the
legislation. There need not be any intention to discriminate for indirect
discrimination to exist.

For example, a requirement that women employees wear uniforms with short
skirts, contrary to the religious beliefs of certain groups like Muslims,
could be construed as discriminatory, though a case would have to be taken
to prove it.

The areas covered by this legislation include not only employers but trade
unions, vocational training bodies, employment agencies, collective
agreements and advertisements. Also covered are not only access to
employment, but conditions of employment, access to promotion and equal pay.

The legislation also extends to harassment of a person on any of the nine
grounds and sexual harassment. For the first time in Irish law this is
defined by statute. It covers unwelcome, offensive, humiliating or
intimidating actions and extends to employers, employees, clients, customers
or business contacts.

An employer may take positive action to promote certain groups of people
without being open to charges of discrimination. This includes measures to
integrate into employment people over the age of 50, with a disability or
who are members of the Traveller community, as well as action to remove
existing inequalities affecting opportunities for women.

There are exemptions to the general thrust of the legislation. These include
benefits to women in connection with maternity or adoption, where the sex of
a person is an occupational qualification for the job, personal services
like caring for an elderly person in his or her own home, and employment in
the Garda Siochána or prison service.

There is also an exclusion in relation to religious, educational and medical
institutions run by religious bodies who are allowed to discriminate to
maintain their religious ethos.

Those who feel they have been discriminated against should initially raise
the issue with their employer. If this fails to resolve the issue, they can
go to the Equality Authority for advice and help and then pursue a claim for
redress through the office of the Director of Equality Investigations.


STATUTORY COHABITATION CONTRACT IN BELGIUM
By Alan Reekie

Any two adults, neither of whom are already married or bound by another
Cohabitation Contact, may bind themselves by the statutory Cohabitation
Contract, regardless of whether they form a same-sex or opposite-sex couple
or whether they are kin or not. Eg: a brother and sister, or two unrelated
men or women.

To be valid, the contract must be signed in the presence of a notary public
and entered in the Register of Population of the municipality where they are
living together.

While the contract is in effect, both partners are jointly responsible for
the expenses incurred in their life together and all reasonable debts
contracted for this purpose, in proportion to their means. Each benefits
individually from his or her earned income.

All heritable property and other assets acquired while the contract is in
effect are deemed to be owned jointly, in the absence of proof of individual
title.

Notwithstanding any contract, each partner:
- remains liable to submit an individual income tax return.
- retains parental authority over his or her children. The existing legal
provisions regarding family membership and guardianship of minor chidren are
similarly unaffected.
- remains regarded as an indivdual for the purpose of adoption and medically
assisted procreation.
- remains regarded as an individual so far as social security and pension
rights are concerned.

Furthermore, the contract has no impact on:
- the existing legal provisions regarding inheritance and the various rates
of taxation payable by the legatees.
- the existing legal provisions regarding the nationality and right of abode
of either partner.

The contract can be terminated at any time by agreement between the
partners, or at the initiative of either of them, without necessarily
undertaking any legal proceedings; however, the local Magistrates Court is
competent to rule in the event of any dispute on the practical aspects in
this context, eg occupation of accommodation, settlement of accounts,
division of jointly-acquired property.


LANDMARK UK RULING ON INTERPREATION OF 'FAMILY'
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Ruling recognises status of "long term" same sex relationships

Gay couples are celebrating a House of Lords victory in a battle to gain
equal housing rights with heterosexual families.

Former Royal Navy serviceman Martin Fitzpatrick, who lived with his gay
partner for almost 20 years until his death in 1994, won his appeal for the
same tenancy succession rights as a husband or wife.

In a case marking an important advance in gay rights, the Law Lords ruled by
3-2 that Mr Fitzpatrick was a member of his partner's family, for the
purposes of the Rent Act laws.

Mr Fitzpatrick, whose partner John Thompson was the official tenant of their
west London flat, was served notice to quit by a housing association after
Mr Thompson's death. He took his case to the House of Lords after the Court
of Appeal ruled in 1997 that he could not succeed his partner's tenancy
because the law did not recognise the rights of same sex partners.

The couple had shared a devoted and monogamous relationship, meeting in 1969
and living together in the flat at the centre of the case from 1976. Mr
Fitzpatrick looked after Mr Thompson, a silversmith, for the last nine years
of his life after he suffered irreversible brain damage from a fall
downstairs.

'Intimate mutual love'
Lord Nicholls, allowing the appeal, said the question in the case was
whether a same sex partner was capable of being a member of the other
partner's family for the purposes of the Rent Act legislation.

Ruling is an advance in gay rights
"I am in no doubt that this question should be answered affirmatively. A man
and woman living together in a stable and permanent sexual relationship are
capable of being members of a family for this purpose.

"Once this is accepted, there can be no rational or other basis on which the
like conclusion can be withheld from a similarly stable and permanent sexual
relationship between two men or between two women. He added: "Where sexual
partners are involved, whether heterosexual or homosexual, there is scope
for the intimate mutual love and affection and long-term commitment that
typically characterise the relationship of a husband and wife."

Lord Clyde and Lord Slynn also allowed the appeal. But Lord Hutton and Lord
Hobhouse delivered dissenting judgments. While he fully recognised the
strength of the argument that Parliament should change the law to give same
sex partners equal rights, Lord Hutton said that only Parliament could
change the law.

'A wonderful victory'
After the ruling Mr Fitzpatrick said: "I am thrilled that after a five-year
battle their Lordships have taken a stand against discrimination. "I only
wish that it had not taken so long and that John was alive today to share
this event with me."

Reacting to the ruling Stonewall, which campaigns for gay and lesbian
equality, said it was the first time that lesbian and gay relationships had
been defined as a family. Angela Mason, executive director, said: "This is a
wonderful victory for Martin and for all the lesbians and gay men in this
country." She added: "This country has lagged behind the developments. This
case and the introduction of the human rights act will give a new chance for
lesbian and gay partners to achieve recognition."

The full text of the ruling can be found at this URL:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd991
028/fitz01.htm



Scotland: SCHOOL'S GAY BAN TO BE LIFTED
From BBC News Friday, October 29, 1999

Scotland's First Minister Donald Dewar has described as "a badge of shame"
the law which bans schools from promoting homosexuality.

Chief political correspondent John Morrison: "A mixed reaction to the
repeal" The Scottish Executive is planning to scrap the law, known as
Section 28, in new legislation to be put before the Scottish Parliament
early next year.

Gay rights campaigners in England and Wales hope the move will prompt
similar action south of the border.

Introduced in 1986 by right-wingers in the Thatcher government, the law
forbids schools and councils from using lessons or publications to promote
homosexuality.

The legislation will be part of the Ethical Standards in Public Life Bill
and will be steered through parliament by the Communities Minister Wendy
Alexander.

She said the executive's main reason for repealing the law was to cut down
on bullying in schools.

"If we are serious about tackling bullying in schools we need to acknowledge
that bullying based on sexuality is a real problem."

She pledged that allowing councils to promote homosexuality would cut down
on discrimination Mr Dewar told BBC Scotland: "The repeal of Section 28 is
justified because it is a clause that was put on the statute book amidst
great controversy.

"It has always given deep offence and both my party and the Liberal
Democrats pledged to remove it when we got that opportunity.

Donald Dewar: "Section 28 is a badge of shame", "It has become really a
badge of shame in the eyes of a very important part of our community and I
think we're right to remove that."

He added that he expected the Westminster Parliament to repeal the ban in
England and Wales as well.

Gay rights group Stonewall said it would be putting pressure on the
government in England and Wales to include legislation in the Local
Government Bill which is expected to be announced in the forthcoming Queen's
Speech.

"This is the ideal opportunity to repeal the legislation. The government has
said it will repeal the law at the earliest opportunity. That opportunity is
now."

He added: "The legislation is damaging young lesbian and gay people. It is
wrong to treat them as second class.

"It would be a shame if people in Scotland were faring much better than
people in England and Wales."  'Too much promotion'

But Conservative MSP Phil Gallie said Labour was wrong to remove Section 28.
"We should leave in place what has worked," he stated.

Mr Gallie disputed Wendy Alexander's belief that the move would would
prevent gays being bullied in schools. "The gay campaigners are there to
promote homosexuality.

"I've no problems with people who live within their own premise and do their
own thing quietly and in the background but there's far too much of a
promotion aspect in things today and this clause refers to the promotion of
homosexuality."

Roman Catholic church spokesman Monsignor Tom Connolly said: "Clearly we are
not in favour of promoting homosexuality, either in schools or in society in
general.

"On the other hand, in today's world, sex education is very important but I
stress the word 'education' and not 'instruction'.

Spiritual values
"I fear that too often people give instruction and pretend it is education.
Education, I believe, is where you explore spiritual values of sexuality and
base it firmly on human relationships."

Tim Hopkins: "Homophobia rife in our schools" The church would closely study
the consultative document on the changes and respond to it, he added.

Tim Hopkins, from the Lesbian and Gay Equality Network in Edinburgh, said:
"Sex education does have to be based on human relationships but it needs to
be inclusive and it needs to include young gay people in the class.

"At the moment it can't do that because of Section 28. Teachers can't give
the support they should be giving to young gay people to protect them from
homophobic bullying which is rife in our schools."


The Russian Federation has dropped "homosexual orientation" from its new
classification of mental and behaviour disorders
By Nigel Warner

ILGA has been advised that the Russian Federation's new classification of
mental and behaviour disorders excludes "homosexual orientation".  Professor
T.B. Dmitrieva, Director of the Serbsky National Research Centre for Social
and Forensic Psychiatry, has written as follows:

"On the 4th of July 1999 the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
approved the new classification of mental and behaviour disorders which is
the adapted version of class V of ICD-10.  In accordance with this
classification "homosexual orientation" is not within the list of mental
disorders."

Under the previous classification, which dated from 1982, homosexuality was
classified as a personality disturbance.


Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: + 45 4049 5297

EURO-LETTER
No. 74 		 Oktober 1999

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European Region
of the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and Lesbian
International Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National Association for
Gays and Lesbians.
Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen and
Soeren Baatrup.
Contact to Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@... URL:
http://www.steff.suite.dk Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45
2033 0840 Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610
Copenhagen V, Denmark
You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters
are available on the Internet at  http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and
at http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html


IN THIS ISSUE
THE FRENCH PaCS
JUDGMENTS IN THE CASES ABOUT GAYS IN THE MILITARY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
ILGA EUROPE PRESS RELEASE AFTER THE JUDGEMENT
EUROPEAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS: DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF UNMARRIED
COHABITATION AS COMPARED TO MARRIAGE WITHIN MARGIN OF APPRECIATION
LATVIA: PROGRESS ON PARTNERSHIP LAW
LATVIA: PARTNERSHIP LAW PRESENTED TO THE MEDIA AND SENT TO PARLIAMENT
BAN ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION PROPOSED IN ITALY
SWISS PARLIAMENT VOTES FOR REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP
REPEAL SECTION 28 HITS THE ROAD
ROMANIA: SAME SEX RELATIONS
EUROPEAN CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS?
ILGA-EUROPE LAUNCHES GUIDE ON THE TREATY OF AMSTERDAM
OSCE REVIEW CONFERENCE

Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur/
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in
Europe can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm
A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding same-sex partners
can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm


THE FRENCH PaCS
by René Lalement

The French National Assembly passed the civil solidarity pact, or PaCS, by
315 votes to 249, in its last and definitive reading on October 13, 1999.
The law should be promulgated by the President by the end of the year, if
the Constitutional Council rules it conforms with the Constitution.

A ten year process
In 1989, the "Cour de Cassation" (the higher civil law court in France)
ruled that a homosexual couple cannot benefit the few advantages which are
given to cohabiting heterosexual couples, especially the transfer of a
tenant's lease.  The first registered partnership law proposal followed in
1990.  Two years later, the "Contrat d'Union Civile" (CUC) was the aim of a
new law proposal signed by eight deputies; rewritten and named "Contrat
d'Union Sociale" (CUS), it was broadly supported by the gay and lesbian and
AIDS-related organisations. The CUS was the main theme of Paris lesbian and
gay pride March in 1996, and one of the demands of next year's Europride in
Paris, the largest political demonstration of that year in France (300,000
participants).

It was only in June 1997 that a ruling coalition had this project in its
electoral agenda, and three law proposals were registered soon after the
1997 elections. In January 1998, Catherine Tasca, president of the law
committee of National Assembly asked MPs Jean-Pierre Michel (MdC) and
Patrick Bloche (PS) to write a synthesis of previous proposals. In April, a
petition against gay marriage, signed by 15,000 mayors, was published ; it
was impressive enough to incite the government to keep the registration of
the future contract away from town halls, while it was the place proposed
until then. Dissenting voices from the homosexual movements were also heard
: Aides Federation (the main AIDS organisation in France, whose president
was Arnaud Marty-Lavauzelle), and a few local but highly visible groups
demanded the opening of marriage to homosexual couples, and branded as
discriminatory the ongoing parliamentary project. Other projects were
brought to public attention, by sociologist Irène Théry (a cohabitation
statute) and by jurist Jean Hauser ("Pacte d'Intérêt Commun"), leading to
strong debates in the media.

In May 1998, the first draft of the PaCS, written by Michel and Bloche was
published. In June, Justice Minister Elisabeth Guigou gave the government's
agreement to this draft, against Thery's and Hauser's projects. Two days
later, Paris Lesbian and Gay Pride march gathered 100.000 people under the
slogan "Nous nous aimons, nous voulons le PaCS". The same day, President
Jacques Chirac (not in charge of the government, because of a contrary
majority in the Assembly) said he opposed any imitation of the marriage.
After the appointment of Michel and Bloche as "rapporteurs" and the
extensive hearings they organised, the law proposal came into discussion
October 9, 1998 and was rejected because of a strong mobilisation of the
opposition, and the defection of the majority. A new law proposal had then
to be prepared.

The Assembly passed this new law proposal 316-249 on December 9, in first
reading. On January 31, a demonstration gathered nearly 100,000 people
against the PaCS ; some strongly homophobic slogans were heard, such as "les
pédés au bûcher". The law proposal was then rejected by the (conservative)
Senate by a vote of 192 to 117 on March 18.  However, the Senators adopted
an alternate proposal that includes in the civil code a definition of
cohabiting couples, but declined an amendment, sponsored by the Left,
specifying that the two people making a couple may be of any gender. In
second reading, the Deputies ignored the Senate proposal, restoring the
Assembly proposal, but they added a definition of cohabitation with the any
gender mention on April 7. This text was then rejected by the Senate on May
11 (with no reading), adopted by the Assembly on June 15 and rejected again
by the Senate on June 30. Only the last (and fourth) reading by the Assembly
can overwrite the Senate rejection. It occurred on October 12 and 13, and
the law was adopted by 315-249.

Contents of the law
(See also http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm)
The civil solidarity pact is a contract binding two adults of different
sexes or of the same sex, in order to organise their common life ;
contractors may not be bound by another pact, by marriage, sibling or
lineage. Adults under custody cannot contract.

The contractors have to register a common declaration by the local court
where they set their common residence, if in France and by the consular
authorities, if abroad.

Partners commit to mutual and material help; modalities of this help are
specified by the common declaration. They are jointly responsible for debts
due to ordinary expenses for the household.

A pact can be dissolved by a common statement of the partners by the court
(or consulate), by the death or the marriage of one of the partners, or
after a three months delay, at the request of one of the partners.

Partners are eligible for joint taxation benefits after three years (which
is interesting only in case the incomes are not equal).  But special
allocations for people having low income are suspended or reduced as soon as
the pact is signed.  Also, the tax on large assets is due from the first
year on.  Donations, but only after two years, and inheritance from a
partner to the other benefit a tax abatement. Life insurance capital can be
paid to the surviving partner.

The tenant's lease can be transferred to the partner if the other partner
leaves their common home or dies.

A partner who does not have a social protection (health benefits) may enjoy
the other partner's social protection.

French nationality is not required to sign a pact ; the signature of a pact
must be considered by the administration when a foreigner asks for
immigration rights, but the pact does not give these rights by itself.

Public servants (from national or local administrations) may ask another
position from their employer in order to get closer to the other partner.

Cohabitation is also defined in this law as a de facto stable and continuous
relationship between two persons of different sexes or of the same sex
living together as a couple.

Moreover, the pact does not contain any clause regarding lineage, adoption
or custody.

Comments on the law
The law does not achieve the equality of homosexual and heterosexual
couples.  Actually, heterosexual couples may cohabit, sign a pact or marry ;
homosexual couples may only cohabit or sign a pact.  Rights, benefits and
obligations can be compared : minimal for cohabitation, they are larger for
PaCS, and still larger for marriage.

However, the law is in itself an equality law, because it does not contain
any discrimination against homosexual couples, for instance there is no
denying of adoption or insemination as in some other partnership laws. Such
discriminations do exist in other parts of the legislation (for marriage,
adoption, etc), but not in the PaCS.

For the first time, a law recognises the very existence of non-married
couples and states the equivalent value of homosexual and heterosexual
couples. Moreover, it recognises the plurality of life styles : marriage is
now only an option and no more the norm. This is both why the pact has been
welcomed by the society, definitely less attracted to marriage, and fought
by the conservative and religious movements.

The PaCS, once read as stating an equality principle in the Law, sheds a new
light on other parts of the Law and on practices which may now appear as
quite discriminatory. This side effect of the new law has already been
understood by its opponents, who even think that, with the help of European
Law, adoption and marriage will sooner or later follow from the PaCS. As the
government is preparing another law concerning family and bio ethic issues,
which will be discussed within the next year, the road is open for new
advances.

Comments on the process
Seven readings in the Parliament, 120 discussion hours, thousands of
amendments made of this law proposal one of the most debated of the last
years. Although it was expected to be a non-partisan law, with support from
the progressive right to the left (as it was the case for the abolition of
the death penalty, or the laws on contraception and abortion), the right
chose to strongly oppose the law, even if some leaders of the right were
privately in favour of the pact. Never since 1982 (for the equalisation of
ages of consent) homosexuality has been said to such extend in the
Parliament. Only two MPs from the right voted for the law, one of them being
long-standing supporter Roselyne Bachelot-Narquin.

This was also an open field for homophobia : both in speeches, in street
demonstrations, and in the media. Some MPs did not hesitate to speak of
register the pact at a veterinary service or to ask for the sterilisation of
homosexual couples.  MP Christine Boutin, the standard-bearer of the
religious right and the leader of the January demonstration (where
demonstrators shouted that fags should be burned), displayed a bible in the
Assembly and uttered despising words in the guise of compassion. Most people
were troubled by such behaviours; the leaders of the opposition, still very
low-voiced, understood that they have made a mistake. As a result, the very
concept of homophobia is now well-known from the media and the politicians,
and now almost unanimously rejected. A law banning homophobic speeches will
probably be planned. A stronger and more conscious acceptation of
homosexuality has been obtained through one year of public debate.

The full text of the law and more information can be found in the France QRD
at the URL http://www.France.QRD.org/texts/partnership


JUDGMENTS IN THE CASES ABOUT GAYS IN THE MILITARY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Press release issued by the Registrar of the Court

In a judgment[fn1] delivered at Strasbourg on 27 September 1999 in the case
of Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of
Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8
(right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on
Human Rights. In a second judgment delivered on the same day in the case of
Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, the Court also found a violation of
Article 8 together with a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective
remedy) of the Convention. The Court reserved for separate judgments the
question of an award of just satisfaction under Article 41.

1. Principal facts
Duncan Lustig-Prean and John Beckett, British nationals, were born in 1959
and 1970 and live in London and Sheffield (United Kingdom) respectively.
Jeanette Smith and Graeme Grady, British nationals, were born in 1966 and
1963 and live in Edinburgh and London (United Kingdom) respectively.

All four applicants, who were at the relevant time members of the United
Kingdom armed forces, are homosexual. The Ministry of Defence apply a policy
which excludes homosexuals from the armed forces. The applicants, who were
each the subject of an investigation by the service police concerning their
homosexuality, all admitted their homosexuality and were administratively
discharged on the sole ground of their sexual orientation, in accordance
with Ministry of Defence policy. They were discharged in January 1995, July
1993, November 1994 and December 1994 respectively. In November 1995 the
Court of Appeal rejected their judicial review applications.

2. Procedure and composition of the Court
The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on
23 April, 11 July, 9 September and 6 September 1996 respectively. On 1
November 1998, in accordance with Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the
Convention, the cases were transmitted to the Court.

On 23 February 1999 the Court (Third Section) joined Mr Lustig-Prean and Mr
Beckett's applications and joined Ms Smith's and Mr Grady's applications. On
the same day the Court also declared the complaints admissible.

A hearing in both cases was held on 18 May 1999.

Judgment in each case was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as
follows:

Jean-Paul Costa (French), President,
Nicolas Bratza (British),
Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot),
Pranas Kuris (Lithuanian),
Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian),
Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian),
Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Judges,

and also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgments

Complaints
Mr Lustig-Prean and Mr Beckett complained that the investigations into their
sexual orientation and their subsequent discharges violated their right to
respect for their private lives, protected by Article 8 of the Convention,
and that they had been discriminated against contrary to Article 14.

Ms Smith and Mr Grady made the same complaints under Articles 8 and 14. They
further complained that the Ministry of Defence policy against homosexuals
and consequent investigations and discharges were degrading contrary to
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), and
that the policy limited their right to express their sexual identity in
violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and that they did not have
an effective domestic remedy for their complaints as required by Article 13.
Article 14 was also invoked in conjunction with the complaints under
Articles 3 and 10.

Article 8
The Court considered the investigations, and in particular the interviews of
the applicants, to have been exceptionally intrusive, it noted that the
administrative discharges had a profound effect on the applicants' careers
and prospects and considered the absolute and general character of the
policy, which admitted of no exception, to be striking. It therefore
considered that the investigations conducted into the applicants' sexual
orientation together with their discharge from the armed forces constituted
especially grave interferences with their private lives.

As to whether the Government had demonstrated "particularly convincing and
weighty reasons" to justify those interferences, the Court noted that the
Government's core argument was that the presence of homosexuals in the armed
forces would have a substantial and negative effect on morale and,
consequently, on the fighting power and operational effectiveness of the
armed forces. The Government relied, in this respect, on the Report of the
Homosexual Policy Assessment Team (HPAT) published in February 1996. The
Court found that, insofar as the views of armed forces' personnel outlined
in the HPAT Report could be considered representative, those views were
founded solely upon the negative attitudes of heterosexual personnel towards
those of homosexual orientation. It was noted that the Ministry of Defence
policy was not based on a particular moral standpoint and the physical
capability, courage, dependability and skills of homosexual personnel were
not in question. Insofar as those negative views represented a predisposed
bias on the part of heterosexuals, the Court considered that those negative
attitudes could not, of themselves, justify the interferences in question
any more than similar negative attitudes towards those of a different race,
origin or colour.

While the Court noted the lack of concrete evidence to support the
Government's submissions as to the anticipated damage to morale and
operational effectiveness, the Court was prepared to accept that certain
difficulties could be anticipated with a change in policy (as was the case
with the presence of women and racial minorities in the past). It found
that, on the evidence, any such difficulties were essentially conduct-based
and could be addressed by a strict code of conduct and disciplinary rules.
The usefulness of such codes and rules was not undermined, in the Court's
view, by the Government's suggestion that homosexuality would give rise to
problems of a type and intensity that race and gender did not or by their
submission that particular problems would arise with the admission of
homosexuals in the context of shared accommodation and associated
facilities.

Finally, the Court considered that it could not ignore widespread and
consistently developing views or the legal changes in the domestic laws of
Contracting States in favour of the admission of homosexuals into the armed
forces of those States. Accordingly, convincing and weighty reasons had not
been offered by the Government to justify the discharge of the applicants.
While the applicants' administrative discharges were a direct consequence of
their homosexuality, the investigations conducted into the applicants'
sexual orientation deserved separate consideration, because the
investigations continued after the applicants had admitted their
homosexuality. The Government suggested that the investigations continued in
order to verify the admissions of homosexuality so as to avoid false claims
by those seeking an administrative discharge from the armed forces. This
argument was rejected by the Court because both applicants wished to remain
in the armed forces. In addition, the Court was not persuaded by the
Government's argument that medical, security and disciplinary reasons
necessitated the investigations. The Court rejected the Government's
submission that the applicants knew they were not obliged to participate in
the interviews, finding, in this latter respect, that the applicants had no
real choice but to co-operate, as they wished to keep the investigations as
discreet as possible. Accordingly, the investigations conducted after the
applicants' confirmed their homosexuality were also considered unjustified.

The Court therefore took the view that neither the investigations nor the
discharges of the applicants were justified within the meaning of Article 8
§ 2.

Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8
The applicants argued that they had been subjected to discriminatory
treatment as a result of the
Ministry of Defence policy against homosexuals in the armed forces. The
Court considered that this
complaint did not give rise to any issue separate to that already considered
under Article 8.

Article 41
The Court considered that the issue of just satisfaction was not yet ready
for decision and reserved
the question for a separate judgment.

Article 8 alone and in conjunction with 14
Since these complaints were similar to those of Mr Lustig-Prean and Mr
Beckett, the Court adopted the same reasoning and reached the same
conclusion.

Article 3 alone and in conjunction with Article 14
The Court noted that it had already indicated, in the context of the
complaints under Article 8, why it considered that the investigation and
discharge together with the blanket nature of the policy of the Ministry of
Defence were of a particularly grave nature. In addition, the Court did not
exclude that treatment grounded upon a predisposed bias on the part of a
heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority as in the present case
could, in principle, fall within the scope of Article 3. It also accepted
that the Ministry of Defence policy together with the consequent
investigations and discharges were undoubtedly distressing and humiliating
for each of the applicants. However, the Court did not consider that, in the
circumstances of the case, the treatment reached the minimum level of
severity which would bring it within the scope of Article 3.

It accordingly concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3
either alone or in conjunction with Article 14.

Article 10 alone and in conjunction with Article 14
The Court considered that the freedom of expression element of the case was
subsidiary to the applicants' right to respect for their private lives which
was principally at issue. The Court therefore found that it was not
necessary to examine the applicants' complaints under Article 10 either
alone or in conjunction with Article 14.

Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8
The applicants argued that the judicial review proceedings did not
constitute an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13.

The Court noted that the sole issue before the domestic courts in the
context of the judicial review proceedings was whether the policy was
irrational and that the test of irrationality was that expounded by Sir
Thomas Bingham MR in the Court of Appeal. According to that test, a court
was not entitled to interfere with the exercise of an administrative
discretion on substantive grounds save where that court was satisfied that
the decision was unreasonable, in the sense that it was beyond the range of
responses open to a reasonable decision-maker. In judging whether the
decision-maker had exceeded this margin of appreciation, the human rights
context was important, so that the more substantial the interference with
human rights, the more the court would require by way of justification
before it was satisfied that the decision was reasonable.

The Court also noted that Sir Thomas Bingham MR emphasised that the
threshold beyond which a decision would be considered irrational was a high
one and it considered that this was confirmed by the judgments of the High
Court and of the Court of Appeal. Both of those courts had commented very
favourably on the applicants' submissions challenging the Government's
justification of the policy and both courts considered that there was an
argument to be made that the policy was in breach of the United Kingdom's
Convention obligations. The Court observed that, nevertheless, those
domestic courts were bound to conclude, given the test of irrationality
applicable, that the Ministry of Defence policy could not be said to be
irrational.

The Court therefore found that the threshold at which the domestic courts
could find the policy of the Ministry of Defence irrational had been placed
so high that it effectively excluded any consideration by the domestic
courts of the question of whether the interference with the applicants'
private lives had answered a pressing social need or was proportionate to
the national security and public order aims pursued by the Government,
principles which lie at the heart of the Court's analysis under Article 8.

The Court concluded, accordingly, that the applicants did not have an
effective domestic remedy in relation to the violation of their right to
respect for their private lives.

Article 41
As in the Lustig-Prean and Beckett case, the Court considered that the issue
of just satisfaction was not yet ready for decision and reserved the
question for separate judgment.

Judge Loucaides expressed in both cases a partly dissenting and partly
concurring opinion which is annexed to the judgments.

The Court's judgments are accessible on its Internet site
(http://www.dhcour.coe.fr) on the day of their delivery.

Footnote
[fn1] The judgment becomes final subject to Articles 43 and 44 of the
Convention:

Under Article 43, within three months from the date of the Chamber judgment,
any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be
referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. A panel of five judges
accepts the request if the case raises a serious question affecting the
interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a
serious issue of general importance.
Under Article 44, the Chamber judgment becomes final (a) when the parties
declare that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand
Chamber; or (b) three months after the date of the judgment, if reference of
the case to the Grand Chamber has not been requested; or (c) when the panel
of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43.


ILGA EUROPE PRESS RELEASE AFTER THE JUDGEMENT

ILGA-EUROPE CALLS ON GERMANY, GREECE, POLAND AND TURKEY TO LIFT THEIR
RESTRICTIONS ON MILITARY SERVICE BY LESBIANS AND GAY MEN FOLLOWING EUROPEAN
COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS RULING

Yesterday's overwhelming and unqualified condemnation by the European Court
of Human Rights of the UK's ban on service in the armed forces by lesbian
and gay persons leaves no doubt that similar restrictions in certain other
member states of the Council of Europe are in clear violation of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

In Germany, lesbians and gay men are disqualified from becoming officers or
military instructors. Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping recently supported
these restrictions, commenting that "homosexuality is cause for considerable
doubt of suitability and shuts out employment in such functions as leading,
education and training in connection with soldiers."

In Greece and Poland lesbian and gay service personnel can be discharged on
the basis that they suffer from a personality disorder, while in Turkey a
law dating from 1996 states that those who engage in "unnatural sexual
intercourse" are to be expelled from the army.

ILGA Europe calls on the governments of these countries to lift their
restrictions immediately. As parties to the European Convention on Human
Rights, they are under an obligation to secure for their citizens the rights
and freedoms protected by the Convention.  Yesterday's judgment leaves no
doubt that these rights include that of lesbians and gay men to serve in
armed forces of their country.


EUROPEAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS: DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF UNMARRIED
COHABITATION AS COMPARED TO MARRIAGE WITHIN MARGIN OF APPRECIATION
by Helmut Graupner, Rechtskomitee LAMBDA, Vienna

On June 29, in Nylynd v. Finland (Application No. 27110/95) (available at
http://www.dhcour.coe.fr/hudoc), the Court declared inadmissible (as
"manifestly ill-founded" within the meaning of Art. 35 § 3 of the
Convention) the complaint of a Finnish man who claimed to be the biological
father of a child born to his former partner who, at the time of birth, was
married to another man. He (inter alia) asserted a violation of Art. 14 of
the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (prohibition of
discrimination) in connection with Art. 8 ECHR (right to respect for family
and private life) because under Finnish law - since the child was born in
wedlock and therefore the husband of the mother is legally presumed to be
the father - he has no right to have his biological paternity examined and
is totally barred from having his paternity established against the wishes
of the mother (who objected to such examinations). He maintained that the
mother's absolute right to decide on her child's fatherhood infringes his
rights under Article 14 of the Convention. Countering the claim of the
Finnish authorities, that this inequality was justified by the need to
protect the family the child now lives in, he argued that such legitimate
considerations as equality of sexes and the protection of the biological
parent-child relationship, including the rights of the father and child,
outweigh the need to defend the social institution of family. He points out
that the family unit, consisting of the then pregnant woman and himself,
enjoys no less protection under Article 8 of the Convention than does a
family created through marriage.

What in this case seems relevant for same-sex partnership cases is the
reasoning of the Court in rejecting the arguments of the applicant. First
the Court, by referring to its judgement in the transgender-case Sheffield &
Horsham (1998), explains that "not every difference in treatment will amount
to a violation of this Article [ Art. 14] . Instead, it must be established
that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy
preferential treatment, and that there is no reasonable or objective
justification for this distinction [ ...] Contracting States enjoy a margin
of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in
otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law". Then the
"Court finds that, though in some fields the de facto relationship of
cohabitees is recognised, there still exist differences between married and
unmarried couples, in particular, differences in legal status and legal
effects. Marriage continues to be characterised by a corpus of rights and
obligations that differentiate it markedly from the situation of a man and
woman who cohabit." Therefore the Court concluded "that the [ unmarried]
applicant was not in a situation analogous to that of the [ married] child's
mother". So a legitimate aim and the reasonableness and objectiveness of the
differential treatment of mother and father need not even be examined,
neither proportionality of means employed to aims sought. Only at the time
of their cohabitation they could be considered to have been in an analogous
or relevantly similar situation and the differential treatment only insofar
has to be examined if pursuing a legitimate aim, being reasonable as well as
objective and proportionate as regards aims and means employed. (The Court
found these criteria be fulfilled in the present case.)

By denying that unmarried and married persons are in an analogous or
relevantly similar situation the Court even goes beyond the decision in
Saucedo Gomez v. Spain (Appl. 37784/97) (Jan. 26) where the Court assumed
unmarried and married persons to be in an analogous situation (regarding
provisions on allocation of the matrimonial home and payment of alimony)
then holding that differential treatment would be reasonable and objective
since the regulation of the legal status of married and unmarried couples
would fall into the Member States margin of appreciation. The Court stated
that "social reality shows the existence of stable unions between men and
women [outside marriage] ... It is not however for the Court to dictate, nor
even to indicate, the measures to be taken in relation to such unions, the
question being one within the margin of appreciation of the respondent
government, which has the free choice of the means to be employed, as long
as they are consistent with the obligation to respect family life protected
by the Convention."

Any way - be it for a lack of a relevantly similar situation or for the
reasonableness and objectiveness of the distinction - it seems that
(unmarried) same-sex couples could not successfully claim a breach of the
Convention (Art. 14) by the mere argument that they are treated less
favourable then married partners. (1)

One argument however remains. In Saucedo Gomez v. Spain the Court qualified
the differential treatment as (also) proportionate since the applicant
freely decided not to benefit from the advantages inherent in the status of
spouse by not marrying her partner. Since same-sex partners however are
barred from marriage it follows from this argument of the Court that
disadvantageous treatment of unmarried couples in general is reasonable and
objective (since falling into the States margin of appreciation) but that
such unfavourable differentiation affecting (unmarried) (same-sex) partners
who are barred from marriage would be disproportionate. (2) (3)

(1) Both decisions have been taken by Section IV of the Court (composed of
seven judges from Germany, Finland, Portugal, Ireland and Croatia in both
cases plus the Ukraine and Bulgaria in Nylynd and Spain and Switzerland in
Saucedo Gomez; by majority in Saucedo Gomez, unanimously in Nylynd). So it
seems not impossible - though not very probable - that another section finds
to other decisions.

(2) This argument however presupposes the ban from marriage as unjustified.
A ban justified (legitimate aim, objective and reasonable, proportionate)
would of course not render unfavourable treatment of such unmarried couples
(in relation to married ones) disproportionate (cf. the problem of
incestuous relations or underage partners). To be successful applicants
therefore would not only have to claim the unfavourable treatment in
relation to married partners and their ban from marriage but they would also
have to show their ban from marriage in itself being unjustifiable.

(3) Under Nylynd v. Finland however this argument would fail, since in this
decision the Court denies an analogous or relevantly similar situation
between unmarried and married couples (thus exempting distinctions from the
examination of a legitimate aim, objectivity and reasonableness and
proportionality). According to that decision unmarried same-sex couples
could only be considered to be in a relevantly similar situation with
unmarried different-sex couples. So under this decision no violation of Art.
14 could be argued if unmarried different-sex and unmarried same-sex couples
would be treated alike but both less favourable then (different-sex) married
partners. A violation could only be argued if unmarried same-sex couples are
treated less favourable then unmarried different-sex couples.


LATVIA: PROGRESS ON PARTNERSHIP LAW
by Juris Ludvigs Lavrikovs, Homosexuality Information Centre, Riga, Latvia

On 5 October 1999 the Human Rights and Public Affairs Commission of the
Saeima (Parliament) of the Republic of Latvia discussed for the first time a
draft law "On Registered Partnership of the Persons of the Same Gender".

This draft law was prepared by the Latvian National Human Rights Office in
cooperation with the Homosexuality Information Centre (HIC) and submitted to
the Parliamentary Commission on 28 September 1999. (See below)

Mr Olafs Bruveris, the Director of the Latvian National Human Rights Office,
was invited to the meeting of the Commission. During the meeting it was
decided not to reject the draft law but to send it to the Legal Office of
the Parliament. This office consists of 5 independent lawyers and its task
is to provide the parliamentary commissions with legal advice. The Legal
Office was asked to consider the draft law and to give advice on what is the
best way to change existing legislation to guarantee the rights of
same-gender couples.

At the same time the Homosexuality Information Centre, in cooperation with
two Riga gay clubs, "Purvs" and "XXL", organised a demonstration in support
of the draft law near the Parliament building. Supporters of the draft
partnership law held posters reading "Lesbian and gay rights are human
rights", "Families are different", "Isn't it nice to make people happy?",
"All are equal but some are more equal than others", etc. This demonstration
attracted very lively interest, not only from the Latvian media; journalists
from Russia and Western Europe were also present.

Opposite the demonstration three people were held one poster: "Against
homosexual marriage". As those three people explained to journalists, they
were from the newly-created organisation "Latvian Society without
Homosexuals".

In the week prior to the meeting of the Parliamentary Commission on Human
Rights and Public Affairs the issue of legal recognition of lesbian and gay
partnership was one of the most discussed topics in the Latvian media. With
few exceptions, TV and radio programmes and publications were neutral and
factual rather than negative and aggressive.

On 3 October 1999 a Member of the Latvian Parliament, Mr Tabuns, who is a
member of the Parliamentary Commission on Human Rights and Public Affairs,
expressed his negative attitudes towards all homosexual people in the main
evening TV news progamme, calling them "moral and physical cripples", and
denouncing homosexuality as "moral and physical deformity". The
Homosexuality Information Centre regards such statements as humiliating hate
speech and in the nearest future intends to sue the MP for stirring up
hatred against lesbians and gay men.

The Homosexuality Information Centre would like to thank individuals and
organisations in Latvia and abroad for the letters of support they sent to
the Parliamentary Commission. HIC regards this as a first step toward legal
recognition of lesbian and gay partnership, and welcomes the decision of the
Human Rights and Public Affairs Commission of the Parliament to discuss the
draft law further.


LATVIA: PARTNERSHIP LAW PRESENTED TO THE MEDIA AND SENT TO PARLIAMENT
by Juris Ludvigs Lavrikovs, Homosexuality Information Centre, Riga, Latvia

On 23 September 1999 a proposal to adopt a same-gender registered
partnership law was presented to the Latvian media during a press conference
at the Latvian National Human Rights Office.  On 28 September 1999 the
proposal was sent to the Human Rights and Public Affairs Commission of the
Saeima (Parliament) of the Republic of Latvia for discussion. This is an
unprecedented event in Latvia, with a state institution admitting that
lesbian and gay rights in the country are being seriously violated and
suggesting that it is the state's obligation to adopt a partnership law.

History
During the last five years Latvian lesbian and gay organisations (the
Latvian Association for Sexual Equality (LASE) and its successor, the
Homosexuality Information Centre (HIC)) have twice appealed to the Latvian
authorities to adopt legislation that would outlaw discrimination against
lesbians and gay men, as well as to introduce legislation on same-gender
registered partnership.  Foreign lesbian and gay organisations have been
asked to support these efforts through the sending of letters to the Latvian
authorities.  This has not, unfortunately, led to any debate on such laws,
much less the adoption of legislation.  Parliament's Commission on Human
Rights and Public Affairs, the Chancellery of the President of Latvia and
the Foreign Ministry, after receiving letters from Latvian and foreign
lesbian and gay organisations, requested that the Latvian National Human
Rights Office examine the legal situation for lesbians and gay men in Latvia
and in other countries and to present a report on the problems that
exist and solutions that might be adopted.

The Latvian National Human Rights Office was created in 1996 as an
"independent state institution established for the purpose of promoting the
observance of human rights and the fundamental rights and fundamental
freedoms of citizens … in the Republic of Latvia, in accordance with
international human rights agreements and conventions signed by Latvia [and]
the Constitution [of the Republic of Latvia]" (The law "On the National
Human Rights Office", adopted 17 December 1996, Article 1).

Research on lesbian and gay rights
In 1998 and 1999, the Latvian Human Rights Office, in co-operation with the
Homosexuality Information Centre, conducted a research project called
"Analysis of the Legal Situation for Lesbians and Gay Men in Latvia".  This
research project was one of the first of its kind in Latvia, examining the
issue of homosexuality in general and the matter of homosexuality and the
law in particular.  The work resulted in an extensive, 140-page report.  The
report consists of four major segments.  The first analyses whether Latvian
legislation guarantees legal protection to individuals irrespective of their
sexual orientation and examines whether same-gender couples are granted the
possibility to establish unions legally and to enjoy the rights and
obligations that are granted automatically to married couples.  The second
focuses on the way in which these issues are addressed in other countries.

A third segment examines the way in which the issue of homosexual rights is
addressed by such international organisations as the Council of Europe, the
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union and
the United Nations.  A detailed examination of decisions taken by the
European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice and the UN
Committee is included.  The final segment of the research report contains
conclusions concerning the legal situation for lesbians and gay men in
Latvia.

At this time only the Latvian version of the report is available at the
Information and Documentation Centre of the Latvian National Human Rights
Office and at the Web site of the Homosexuality Information Centre at
http://www.gay.lv/projekts. Copies of the research report will be
distributed to various state institutions, colleges and universities and
non-governmental organisations in Latvia. In the near future an English
translation of those sections of the report that are relevant to Latvia will
be provided.

Results
According to the research, there is no legal protection for individuals on
the basis of sexual orientation in Latvia.  Discrimination against
homosexuals is practised, and it is not illegal.  A prohibition against
marriage between persons of the same gender and a failure to provide any
alternatives for same-gender unions - these represent a serious violation of
the rights of lesbian and gay couples.

It is concluded in the research report that situation violates the
principles of a democratic and pluralistic state.  It is Latvia's
international obligation to protect human rights, and this includes meeting
the requirements that are levelled against candidate countries for accession
to the European Union, as well as the requirements of the Latvian
constitution.

The authors of the research report have proposed a set of legislative
reforms to improve the situation and to provide legal equality for lesbians
and gay men.  One of the proposals is that a registered partnership law be
introduced.

Explanatory notes to the proposed law
Partnership among persons of the same gender is not recognised in Latvian
law, and same-gender couples suffer serious legal disadvantages and
discrimination.  The adoption of a law on registered partnership for persons
of the same gender can reduce this discrimination and improve the situation
for same-gender couples.

The research provides a complex of legislative reforms to improve this
situation and provide lesbians and gay with the legal equality. One of these
proposals is to introduce a registered partnership law.

At the moment partnership of the persons of the same sex are not recognised
by the Latvian law and same-sex couples are suffering from serious legal
disadvantages and discrimination. Adoption of a law on registered
partnership for the persons of same sex can reduce this discrimination and
to improve situation for same-sex couples.


Summary of the law
The proposed law would provide same-gender couples with an opportunity to
register their partnerships.  With the exception of those provisions which
regard religious institutions, the registration and dissolution of such
partnerships would be regulated by civil law, as well as other normative
acts regarding the registration and dissolution of marriages.

Registered partnership would have a similar legal effect as does marriage.
After adoption of the law, those laws and other normative provisions which
refer to marriage and married partners (except for provisions that concern
the adoption of children) would apply to registered partnerships and
registered partners.  Registered partners would have similar rights and
obligations to those of married partners.

The authors of the report point out and used as example similar laws adopted
in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and the Netherlands, and a law drafted
in Finland.

Aims and reasons for the proposed law
The main reason for the proposed law is that there is a need to allow two
men or two women to form legally based partnerships in Latvia.  The law "On
registration of the partnership of two persons of the same gender" would
regulate mutual relations between the two persons of the same gender insofar
as legal issues are concerned, as well as the relationship between such
persons and third parties, society, and the state.

Marriage is the only form of cohabitation that is presently recognised by
law.  When entering marriage, a man and a woman can express their will to
create a family in public.  Marriage does not, however, have only a symbolic
meaning.  Married partners gain certain mutual rights and obligations,
including toward third parties, society and state.  Article 35.2 of the
Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia currently prohibits marriage between two
persons of the same gender.  There is no other law or normative act that
provides legal recognition of persons of the same gender.  Such people, in
other words, are denied an opportunity to express their will to live
together and to regulate in a legal way personal, property and civil
relations mutually and with respect to third parties and the state.

The institution of registered partnership between persons of the same gender
would in no sense set up a legal comparison to the institution of marriage
between a man and a woman.  The proposed partnership law would not abolish
the aforementioned article of the Civil Law which prohibits marriage between
two persons of the same gender.  Taking into account the specific nature of
the registration of a partnership between two persons of the same gender,
the form and procedure of the existing institution of marriage have been
taken merely as an example for the registration of same-gender partnerships.
The proposed law would provide that registered partners have rights and
obligations that are similar to those of married persons, but that would not
be the case in all instances.  The main goal of the proposed law is to
achieve legal recognition of partnerships between persons of the same
gender.  The proposed law would provide same-gender partners with a legal
basis for building and regulating mutual relations, as
well as relations with third parties and the state.  The adoption of the law
would provide a better opportunity for same-gender partners to regulate
their lives as they wish and choose to do.  The law would promote formation
of long-term and responsible unions between same-gender individuals.  The
law would also have an important educational purpose - recognition of
partnerships between same-gender persons by the state would set a good
example of tolerance in society.  The institution of registered partnership
would allow same-gender partners the choice of formalising their
relationships or refraining from doing so - a choice which couples of
opposite gender already have.

Recognition of and a positive attitude toward committed and long-term
relationships between same-gender partners will also help to decrease the
incidence of unstable, casual relations, and that will significantly help to
decrease the spread of HIV infection.

The proposed law is ethically neutral.  The authors of the draft law believe
that it is not a task of legislation to tell capable adults how to regulate
their private lives or to condemn certain forms of cohabitation.  Instead
the state must provide them with support and help in forming and regulating
their lives as long as their choices do not threaten the security and health
of other members of society.  The registration of same-gender partnerships -
a process which primarily concerns the private relationship between two
adults - simply cannot create any such threats.  On the contrary: This law
would provide legal recognition to a significant segment of society,
allowing people to form and regulate their relationships in a civilised
manner.  Objections and intolerance toward the registration of same-gender
persons, as expressed by some members in society, can in no way justify a
denial of human rights for lesbians and gay men through a failure to provide
legal recognition for their partnerships.

The protection and promotion of human rights and equality for all persons in
society is a cornerstone for every pluralistic and democratic society.
Since the restoration of its independence, the Republic of Latvia has been
expressing its will to build such a society.

The proposed law is also neutral from the point of view of religion.  It
does not contain any provisions concerning the registration of same-gender
partnerships by religious institutions, because this is an internal issue
for each religious denomination.  Religious objections against such
registration cannot be a reason to reject this law, because the Latvian law
on religious organisations provides for a separation between church and
state in Latvia.  The primary task of the state, indeed, must be to provide
help for all of its citizens and residents, along with recognition
concerning issues related to their personal and civil relationships.

Registration
Registration of same-gender partnerships, according to the draft law, would
take place under the auspices of existing laws concerning the registration
of marriage.  These are Articles 32-83 of the second sub-section,
"Registration and dissolution of marriage", of the first part ("Family law")
of the Latvian Civil Law, Articles 13-21 of the third sub-section,
"Registration of marriage", of the law "On acts of civil status", and
Articles 19-56 of the third sub-section, "Registration of marriage", in the
Ministry of Justice instruction "On the registration of acts of civil status
in the Republic of Latvia".  The provisions of these documents relating to
religious institutions would not be relevant for registered partnership.

Conditions for partnership registration
These are Articles 32 to 83 of the second subsection "Registration and
dissolution of marriage" of the fist part "Family Law" of the Civil Law;
Articles 13 to 21 of the third subsection "Registration of marriage" of the
law "On acts of civil status"; and Articles 19 to 56 of the third subsection
"Registration of marriage" of he Instruction of the Ministry of Justice "On
Registration of acts of civil status in the Republic of Latvia".

These provisions of the above mentioned documents related to religious
institutions will not be relevant to registered partnership.

The law "On registration of the partnership of persons of the same gender"
would apply only to two persons of the same gender.  Two persons of the same
gender who wish to register their partnership and who can satisfy the
conditions that are laid down in the proposed law will, provided that there
are no legal obstacles, be able to register their partnership officially.

Such persons will have to satisfy the same conditions which apply to those
who wish to register a marriage.  They will have to be at least 18 years of
age, although in exceptional conditions a person aged 16 or older would be
permitted to register a partnership if his or her parents or custodian gave
authorisation and if the other person were at least 18 years of age.  If a
parent or custodian refuses permission without reasonable explanation, the
refusal can be appealed to the Latvian Orphans' Court.

Registration would not be permitted for persons declared uncapable by a
court for reasons of mental disturbance.  Registration would be prohibited
among relatives of the first degree, brothers, sisters, half-brothers,
half-sisters, adopters and adoptees, and custodians and persons in custody.
The latter rule would not apply in those instances when the civil relations
established by adoption or custody have ended. Persons already registered in
a marriage or another partnership would not be allowed to enter a new
partnership.  At least one of the parties to the partnership would have to
be a citizen or permanent resident of Latvia.

Announcement
Prior to the registration of a partnership there would be an official
announcement, the aim of which would be to allow anyone who has an objection
to the registration or whose rights would be violated by the registration to
express his or her concerns.

The registration ceremony
The registration of a partnership between two persons of the same gender
would involve a specific ceremony.  A clerk from the office for registration
of acts of civil status would be present in official capacity, and the
registration would occur in the presence of both partners and two witnesses
of full age.  A note of the registration of the partnership would be
recorded in a special register, and the note would be signed by the
partners, the witnesses and the official who is present.  A seal with an
image of the national emblem would confirm the note.

The partners would receive a certificate of the registered partnership, and
notation of same would be marked in their passports, noting the registered
partner's name and surname, identification number and date of birth, as well
as the place and time of registration and the number of the registered
partnership.

Dissolution of a registered partnership
The dissolution of a registered partnership would occur in accordance with
existing laws on the dissolution of marriages.  This would be an issue that
is the competence of the Latvian courts.

A registered partnership would be considered dissolved from the day on which
the relevant court ruling takes effect.  Courts would be allowed to dissolve
a registered partnership at the request of one or both of the registered
partners.

A request for dissolution could be filed on the following grounds:
the other partner has created a threat to the life or health of the
petitioner;
the other partner has left the petitioner and the absence has lasted for at
least one year;
the other partner has, since the registration of the partnership, become ill
with a long-term or untreatable mental disease or a serious infectious
disease;
if the other partner has committed an offence which compromises the
petitioner's honour or has lived so dishonestly or immorally that further
cohabitation is impossible;
if the registered partnership has become meaningless to the point where
future cohabitation is not possible;
if the registered partners have lived separate lives for at least three
years;
if both parties agree to the dissolution (these grounds can be claimed for
dissolution no sooner than one year after the registration of the
partnership).

The legal effect of a registered partnership
The legal effect of a registered partnership, with a few exceptions, would
be similar to the legal effect of a marriage.  The laws and normative acts
which apply to marriage and married partners would, with some exceptions,
also apply to registered partnerships and partners.  The main exception is
that registered partners would not be allowed to adopt children (Articles
162-176 of the Civil Law, which relate to this right, would not apply to
registered partners).  Laws on the personal rights and obligations of
partners (Articles 84-88 of the Civil Law), and the property relationship
between partners (Articles 89-145) would apply to registered partners.  The
same is true with respect to laws and normative acts relating to inheritance
issues (Articles 382-840), pensions and social insurance, taxation,
immigration and citizenship, registration of residential space, medical
issues, civil service, and the rights of partners during a criminal process.

In the field of social security, too, registered partners would have the
same obligations and rights as married partners - in decisions on the
allocation of social and unemployment benefits to one partner, for example,
the income of the other partner would be taken into consideration.

The adoption of the law would create a new concept in Latvian civil law -
"registered partnership".   Under civil status, persons who have registered
a partnership would be "registered partners".

International law
International treaties to which Latvia is party would not apply to
registered partnerships and partners unless the contracting parties to the
respective treaty have agreed otherwise.  Registered partnerships from other
countries would automatically be recognised in Latvia.

Draft Law of the Republic of Latvia
"On Registration of the Partnership of Persons of the Same Gender".

Article 1
Two persons of the same gender can register their partnership.

Article 2
Registration of partnership

(1) Registration of partnership takes place according to
Articles 32 to 58 of the second subsection, "Registration and Dissolution of
Marriage", of the first part, "Family Law", of the Civil Law of the Republic
of Latvia,
Articles 13 to 21 of the third subsection, "Registration of Marriage", of
the law "On Acts of Civil Status", and - Articles 19 to 56 of the third
subsection, "Registration of Marriage", of the Instruction of the Ministry
of Justice "On Registration of Acts of Civil Status in the Republic of
Latvia".
All provisions of those documents regarding religious institutions are not
covered by this law.

(2)  Partnership can be registered if both parties or at least one party is
a citizen of the Republic of Latvia, or a citizen of another country or
person without citizenship who possesses a valid permanent residency permit
in the Republic of Latvia.

Article 3
Legal effect of partnership registration

(1) After a partnership is registered, parties to the partnership will have
the same rights and obligations as married partners.

(2) All laws and legislative acts regarding marriage and married partners
will automatically cover registered partnership and registered parties.

(3) Laws and legislative acts regarding the joint adoption of children will
not cover registered partners.

(4) All laws and legislative provisions referring to married partners
depending upon their gender, such as husband and wife, will not cover
registered partners.

(5) International treaties will not cover registered partnership.
International treaties will cover registered partnership in those instances
when parties to the respective treaty have agreed to do so.

(6) Similar partnerships registered in other countries will automatically be
recognised in the Republic of Latvia.

Article 4
Dissolution of partnership

(1) Registered partnership will end or will be dissolved according to
Articles 59 to 83 of the second subsection, "End and dissolution of
marriage", of the first part, "Family Law", of the Civil Law of the Republic
of Latvia.

(2) Partnerships registered according to this law can be dissolved only by
the Latvian courts.


BAN ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION PROPOSED IN ITALY
By Mark Bell, University of Leicester.

New proposals for anti-discrimination legislation in Italy include
discrimination based on sexual orientation ['orientamento sessuale']. The
initiative has been brought forward by the Minister for Equal Opportunities,
Laura Balbo, and was formally approved as a legislative proposal by the
government on 8 October.

The draft law seeks to promote the full realisation of the principle of
equality by ensuring non-discrimination on grounds of sex, race, ethnic
origin, language, religious or personal conviction, political opinion,
disability, age, sexual orientation, personal or social condition (Article
1). The ban on discrimination is with a view to ensuring the effective
participation of all in the political, economic and social life of the
country (Article 1). As such, the law applies beyond relations in the
employment sphere, although there seems to be an expectation that this will
be one of the areas most directly affected.

Article 2 forbids indirect discrimination. Significantly, paragraph 4 of
Article 2 requires the public administration to integrate the principles of
non-discrimination and equal opportunities into general policies. Moreover,
there is specific mention of the need to incorporate equal opportunities
into employment policy.

Article 3 provides for means of redress. In particular, a judge may not only
order an end to the discriminatory behaviour, but also the removal of its
effects, which is potentially more far-reaching. Paragraph 4 of Article 3
provides for actions by associations representing the rights and interests
of the groups affected by discrimination where the discrimination is of a
collective character.

The penalties for an act of discrimination are a maximum of 3 years
imprisonment or a fine between L. 200 000 and L. 2 000 000.

This is an ambitious and worthy initiative, clearly drawing inspiration from
the new commitment to non-discrimination in Article 13 of the EC Treaty. As
such, the Italian government has given an example to the other EU member
states (and those wishing to accede to the EU). Article 13 EC may not
require immediate implementation of new anti-discrimination norms, but it
should prompt governments all over Europe to reconsider the sufficiency of
the existing legal resources. The hard work of getting the proposals through
the parliament naturally still lies ahead. Nonetheless, the proposal must be
commended for its forward-looking nature, and valuable innovations which
should instruct law reforms in other states. In particular, the requirement
for the integration of non-discrimination into policies across the public
administration, as well as the legal standing provided for non-governmental
associations seem important to enhancing the ultimate effectiveness of the
law.

Sources: La Repubblica, 8-11 October 1999, http://www.repubblica.it
For the text of the law, see
http://www.repubblica.kataweb.it/images/cittadino.lex/cittadino.gif


SWISS PARLIAMENT VOTES FOR REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP
From AFP, Paris,  Tuesday 28 September 1999

BERNE (AFP) - On Monday, 27 September, a large majority of the Federal
Assembly voted in favour of a private member's motion proposing that
same-sex couples should be entitled to register their partnerships
officially.

In response to the initiative of Jean-Michel Gros (Swiss Liberal Party), the
Assembly instructed its Legal Affairs Committee to draft a Bill intended to
eliminate the discrimination that such couples now experience. The motion
was adopted by 105 members against 46. It reccommends that the provisions
currently applicable to heterosexual couples for mutual assistance, joint
responsibility for debts and joint income tax returns should be
extended to such partnerships and that in the event of one partner's death
the other should become the residuary legatee by default. Furthermore,
provided the partners were really co-habiting, a foreign registered partner
would be entitled to a residence permit.

On the other hand, registration would not entitle the partners to any right
to adoption or assisted procreation. The conservative opposition hopes that
the rural population will be opposed to any such initiative.

Whether this is indeed the case will become apparent when the results of the
consultation regarding the Report on the legal status of same-sex couples
within each Canton are published, which will probably be at the end of 1999.
The Federal Department of Justice and the Police launched this consultation,
which puts forward five options ranging from specific provisions for
lesbians and gay men to enabling them to get married, at the end of last
June.

According to the Swiss Consitution, any MP is free to table a Bill which, if
it is adopted by both legislative Chambers under the rules of procedure,
cannot be blocked unless a sufficiently large number of citizens call for it
to be subject to a referendum. According to several opinion polls, the
official registration of homosexual partnerships is acceptable to a
substantial majority of Swiss citizens.


REPEAL SECTION 28 HITS THE ROAD
By Stonewall

The campaign to repeal one of the most significant anti-gay laws, Section
28, is to intensify over the next few months.  Stonewall, the lesbian and
gay lobbying group, are running a series of roadshows across the country in
the lead up to the Queen's Speech in November.

The Section 28 Roadshow will involve five high profile meetings in the Town
Halls of Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Brighton and Newcastle.

Section 28 is a highly symbolic piece of legislation for the lesbian and gay
community.  Passed in 1989 under the Thatcher Government, it was intended by
its creators to prevent schools dealing with lesbian and gay issues.  56% of
teachers believe the existence of Section 28 is damaging young lesbians and
gays in schools (Playing it Sate, Institute of Education, 1998)

At each meeting Stonewall will chair a panel of speakers including the local
council representatives, teachers and a local Member of Parliament.

It is well known that the Local Government Minister, Rt. Hon Hilary
Armstrong MP, supports the repeal of section 28, and these roadshows will
make the case for repeal through the forthcoming local Government Bill.

Already 30,000 people have sent Stonewall's campaign postcards to urge the
Minister to do just this.

The momentum behind this timely campaign has gathered pace since the
horrific bombing in April of a gay pub in Soho.  Ministers have acknowledged
the link between discriminatory laws, the prejudice they foster, and the
hate crimes such as the Soho bombing.  Campaigners are determined that the
Government should make good their longstanding commitment to repeal Section
28.

Angela Mason, executive director of Stonewall, said: "Our campaign roadshow
meetings will be a focus for grassroots campaigners and will demonstrate to
the Government the great support that exists around the country for
repealing Section 28.

"Section 28 will be a real test for this Government.  It's not a time for
excuses or backtracking.  It must now seize the chance to prove itself on
equality issues and to continue the process of welcoming lesbians and gays
into society rather than reinforcing their alienation from it."

ROMANIA: SAME SEX RELATIONS
By Adrian Coman

On September 24, 1996, the (Parliament) Committee to mediate the law
regarding the modification of the Penal Code, adopted the Senate version of
article 200. Same sex relations were punished if taking place in public
places or if causing public scandal.

At the same time, this version (currently in force – see art. 200 annexed)
denies explicitly the rights of gays and lesbians to free association and
free expression.

After the change of the regime in the end of 1996, the Romanian Government
submitted to the Parliament (May 1998) a draft law to modify the Penal Code
and the Penal Procedure Code, that included the abolishment of article 200.
The Government draft law was rejected by the Chamber of Deputies (lower
Chamber of Parliament).

After 3 years, on September 23, 1999, the Romanian Parliament is again asked
to decriminalize consenting same sex relations between adults. Romania is
the only member state of the Council of Europe that maintains a criminal
anti gay legislation, despite the many international pressures.

Below you find more information about the current Government initiative, as
reflected by two MEDIAFAX press releases (translation into English by
ACCEPT).

Art. 200 – ACCEPT Reaction / ACCEPT Welcomes the Ministry of Justice
Initiative to Abolish Article 200

BUCUREªTI, September 24, 1999 (MEDIAFAX) – The human rights association
"ACCEPT" welcomes the Ministry of Justice initiative to abolish article 200
of the Penal Code on same sex relations, initiative that is provided for by
the draft law on modifying the Penal Code and Penal Procedure Code, adopted
on Thursday by the Government.

"We are happy because the Government maintains its policy regarding sexual
minorities and we hope that this institution be officially and unofficially
supporting its approach also at the moment of debating this draft law in
Parliament. We have the experience of the last year failure, taking into
account that the same draft law was rejected last ear by the Chamber of
Deputies" stated Adrian Coman, Executive Director of "ACCEPT" on Friday, for
MEDIAFAX.

"ACCEPT" is a non governmental human rights organization fighting for gay
rights in particular.
In June 1998, the Chamber of Deputies rejected the draft law on the
modification of the Penal Code, missing 5 votes in favor. The draft law had
been adopted article by article, and at the final vote a majority of 172
deputies was need, being an organic law. In favor of the law were 67
deputies, 94 were against and 81 were not present.

At that moment, the consequences  of not adopting the modifications of the
Penal Code were related to the European requests regarding humosexuals (…)
The Ministry of Justice submitted on Thursday 4 draft laws previously
approved by the Government regarding the modification of the Penal Code and
Penal Procedure Code (…). MEDIAFAX
Romanian Orthodox Church (BOR) maintains its point of view on article 200
regarding homosexuality

BUCURESTI, September 24, 1999 (MEDIAFAX) – BOR maintains its point of view
on the abolishment of article 200 of the Penal Code on punishing same-sex
relations, according to sources within Romanian Patriarchy, on Friday,
quotes MEDIAFAX.

BOR considers that legalizing homosexuality by abolishing art. 200 may
present homosexuals as "people with a normal behavior", whose "moral
promiscuity" may be an alternative to the Christian Morality. High BOR
representatives think that maintaining punishment for homosexuality may
protect citizens confronted with the spread of this vice against human
nature.

But at the same time, BOR considers that the punishment to prison is not the
most efficient solution to "eradicate the scourge called homosexuality".

"The Orthodox Church condemns the sin and not the sinner. What we want is to
identify clear formulas to underline the status of abnormality of homosexual
practices. We believe that public manifestations of those who practice this
vice, including by means of propaganda in clubs, own magazines, etc., should
not be encouraged. The Church is trying to make the Romanians aware that
this is an abnormal practice, with very serious consequences for the
Romanian people's spirit, in the context where family is still very
important for the Romanian society", high officials have stated several
times since the conflict on this issue aroused […]".
MEDIAFAX News Agency


EUROPEAN CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS?
Brussels, 13/10/1999 (Agence Europe)

At a press conference organised two days before the summit, British
Liberal-Democrat Andrew Duff and Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhuber,
co-rapporteurs for the European Parliament on the European Charter for
Fundamental Rights which is to be one of the topics of the extraordinary
Council of Tampere, called on the Heads of State and Government to come down
in favour of a binding Charter.

Mr. Duff notes that, according to the Council's draft, the Charter would
only be a simple description of the "status quo", without real guarantees,
whereas what is needed is a "mandatory" document not only for European
institutions but also for Member States. "We shall provide our
representatives within the body drawing up the charter (see below) the brief
to promote this concept of a binding 'Bill of Rights'", Mr. Duff stated,
while saying he was aware of the delicate problems that this exercise
raised, notably regarding relations between the European Union and the
"Court of Strasbourg" (the European Court on Human Rights), the
jurisprudence "of our own Court of Justice" and the question of "privileged
access" for citizens to this Court. All these problems will be raised at the
next Intergovernmental Conference on the review of the Treaty, he noted. As
for Mr. Voggenhuber, he called on the Tampere Summit to agree to amend the
procedure for drawing up the Charter and the remit of the body responsible
for drawing up the document, especially in order to update the catalogue of
citizens' rights, including those relating to the information society and
new technologies. The Charter must be binding and cover all EU policies,
and, therefore, the three pillars of the Treaty, he said, stressing that
fundamental rights were "indivisible", and that a catalogue of "empty
rights", without any guarantee, would be more of an "alibi" than progress.

Drawing up such a document was a "natural task for the representatives of
the people", he said, stressing the role Parliament would have to play in
the future body which will draw up the Charter.

On Monday, the EU Council reached agreement on the composition of the body
that will draw up the draft Charter, and which will therefore be made up of:
one representatives of each of the Heads of State or Government, a
representative of the President of the European Commission, sixteen
representatives from the European Parliament (which it will itself choose),
thirty representatives of national parliaments (two per parliament). In
addition, agreement was also reached on the presence of observers and bodies
invited to give their views, exchanges of views with applicant countries and
the solemn proclamation of the Charter by the European Parliament, the
Commission and the Council (also see EUROPE of 11/12 October, p.4).

5.(EU) EU/HUMAN RIGHTS: Council approves its first annual report

Luxembourg, 13/10/1999 (Agence Europe) - During its meeting on 11 October in
Luxembourg, the General Affairs Council approved its first annual report on
human rights, drawn up following the Vienna Declaration of 10 December 1998
on the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which
provides for the annual publication of this report as one of the means for
stepping up action by the EU with regard to human rights. The report
stresses that the Union's policy in the field of human rights applies in
relations between the EU and third countries, but it must begin at home.

The policy mainly focuses on the fight against racism (recalling that the
European Commission must present draft directives on job discrimination and
on social security, education, sporting and cultural activities before the
end of the end) and states that human rights cannot be disassociated from
economic development and social justice.

Furthermore, the Council welcomed the fact that the first regular Forum for
discussion on human rights, in the context of follow-up to the Vienna
Declaration that the European summit of 11 and 12 December 1998 had taken on
board, is to be held on 30 November and 1 December. The Declaration and the
Forum are initiatives that may also contribute to transparency and encourage
dialogue with civil society, by bringing the Union closer to citizens, state
the conclusions, which specify that the Council has agreed to use the annual
report as an element for discussion during this first Forum.


ILGA-EUROPE LAUNCHES GUIDE ON THE TREATY OF AMSTERDAM

On 1 May 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force. It brought about a
couple of changes relevant for lesbians and gays in the European Union,
including a new anti-discrimination clause, Article 13, which covers
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, together with sex,
racial or ethnic origin, religion, belief, disability and age. It is the
first time that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation has been
mentioned in the EU Treaties. Article 13 however has no direct effect but
only provides the legal basis for the EU to take appropriate action to
combat discrimination.

With the financial support of the European Commission and the Federal
Government of Austria, ILGA-Europe has put together a 80-page guide on the
new opportunities offered by the Treaty of Amsterdam with regard to the
protection from sexual orientation discrimination for the lesbian and gay
citizens of the European Union. The Guide presents the historic developments
leading up to the Treaty and the key changes introduced by it, and explores
in detail the scope and limitations of Article 13 and the other new
provisions relating generally to human rights. It also contains useful
background information on the European Union and presents a set of
recommendations for action under the current Treaty framework as well as for
further revisions to be debated at the next intergovernmental conference to
start in January 2000, including the adoption of an EU Bill of Fundamental
Rights. Authors contributing to the Guide include Mark Bell, Sejal Parmar
and Kees Waaldijk.

ILGA-Europe's Guide – entitled "After Amsterdam: Sexual Orientation and the
European Union" – has been produced in print in four languages: English
(5000 copies), French, German and Spanish (1000 copies each). It can be
ordered at the following email address: ieboard@egroups.com. The Guide is
now also available at ILGA-Europe's web-site:
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur/

Seminar in Vienna
The Guide was launched at a seminar organised by ILGA-Europe in Vienna from
2-3 October 1999. The seminar gathered around 45 representatives from
lesbian and gay organisations in the EU member states and the candidate
countries to discuss the new opportunities offered by the Treaty of
Amsterdam and further joint lobbying strategies to work for a comprehensive
implementation of Article 13 and further protection from sexual orientation
discrimination under future Treaty revisions, such as the proposed Bill of
Rights. The seminar also debated activities to make sure that the respect of
the human rights of gays and lesbians and non-discrimination based on sexual
orientation be adequately addressed in the accession process of new members
and be made a pre-condition for membership in the European Union.

The seminar also discussed in detail the draft proposals of the Commission
for the implementation of Article 13 presented by the Commission last May.
The Commission proposals consist of two directives and one action programme.
While the proposed directive to prohibit discrimination in employment and
occupation and the action programme cover all grounds listed in Article 13,
the proposed directive to prohibit discrimination in other areas of
Community competence, such as social protection, provision of and access to
goods and services, education, culture and sports, is limited to the grounds
of race or ethnic origin. ILGA-Europe has been advocating to extend this
proposed second directive to all grounds mentioned in Article 13 and
communicated this view to the responsible Commission services, e.g. the
General-Directorate Employment (formerly DG V). The seminar has endorsed
this demand. ILGA-Europe and its member organisations in the EU countries
will try to convince the Commission to alter its approach in order to avoid
the promotion of a hierarchy in the protection from discrimination on the
various grounds. The Commission will decide upon its proposals on 25 October
1999.


OSCE REVIEW CONFERENCE
Vienna, 20 September - 1 October 1999 in the Human Dimension  Working Group
Oral statement by Kurt Krickler

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this meeting on behalf of
the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA),
a federation of organisations fighting discrimination against homosexual
women and men, with members in almost all European countries.

ILGA has been participating as an NGO in the Human Dimension of the OSCE
since the Moscow meeting in 1991. Since 1993, we have been presenting oral
statements to the Human Dimension, reporting positive developments in
participating States with regards to the respect of the human rights of
lesbians and gay men but also reminding non-complying States to honour their
commitments entered not only under the OSCE process but also under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Human
Rights Convention.

Since last year's Implementation Meeting in Warsaw, we can note that in some
countries progress has been made in this field, but we also realise that
others are still very reluctant to comply with the demands to stop sexual
orientation discrimination.

On the positive side, we can note that Bosnia and Herzegovina, Tajikistan,
and Georgia have repealed the total ban on homosexuality. Liechtenstein is
also voting on law reform these days but unfortunately, the Bill does not
provide for the complete elimination of all existing anti-homosexual
legislation in the criminal code. We can also note with satisfaction that
Switzerland included "lifestyle" as one ground of protection in its new
Constitution, thus banning all discrimination on the grounds of sexual
orientation.  We can also state on the positive side that Sweden and
Slovenia introduced anti-discrimination legislation prohibiting sexual
orientation discrimination at the workplace.

On the negative side, we have to note that a total ban on homosexuality
still exists in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and in more than 20 states
of the United States of America – despite the fact that in 1994, the United
Nations Human Rights Committee has ruled that such a total ban violates
Article 17 of the UN Covenant.

Again on the negative side, we have to note that discriminatory unequal age
of consent law provisions continue to exist in Albania, Austria, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, the Faroe Islands, Hungary, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Ukraine and the United
Kingdom – despite the fact that, in 1997, the European Human Rights
Commission has ruled that such unequal age of consent for homosexual and
heterosexual constitutes a violation of the European Human Rights
Convention.

Again on the negative side, we have to report an increase of hate crimes
against lesbians and gay men, especially in the United States of America,
but also in some European countries.Two years ago, we brought to your
attention the fact that, in Sweden, 27 gay men and lesbians had been
murdered in hate crimes between 1987 and 1997. Last August, the gay pride
week in Stockholm was marked by brutal attacks of skinheads and neo-nazis
against gay men that left several heavily injured. In a survey among gay men
in Sweden this year, a third of all gay men declared to have been victim of
violent attacks. Although this serious problem has been persisting for a
couple of years now, Sweden has failed to date to introduce hate crime
legislation and to extend existing laws against racist violence to also
cover homophobic violence. A neglect that, for certain people, obviously is
perceived as an invitation and encouragement to continue their verbal and
physical violence against lesbians and gay men.

ILGA-Europe urges the OSCE to emphasise non-discrimination against lesbians
and gay men being part of the respect of human rights, and to monitor this
more closely with non-complying countries.

We also urge once more the delegations of the countries concerned to more
firmly report back to their governments and parliaments that they ignore
relevant decisions both of the UN Human Rights Committee and the European
Court of Human Rights and that they do not honour their OCSE commitments in
this field.

Last year in Warsaw, the distinguished delegate of the Council of Europe
mentioned the plans for broadening Article 14 of the European Human Rights
Convention to make it a real anti-discrimination article. On that occasion,
ILGA-Europe expressed its hopes that "sexual orientation" be explicitly
listed as a non-discrimination ground in the new Article 14. However, last
August, when the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe published
the proposed draft for a new Article 14, we had to realise that this draft
does not include sexual orientation. We, therefore, would like to use this
opportunity to appeal to the Council of Europe to reconsider this decision
and to explicitly list sexual orientation as a new ground in Article 14 of
the Convention.

We are also very disappointed that, due to the resistance of certain
countries, non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation has not
been included in the document, the Charter, that is being prepared for the
Istanbul Summit. Regretting this, however, we would like to thank the Dutch
delegation for their efforts to have such a clause included. And we call
upon this meeting and all delegations to reconsider this decision and to
explicitly mention sexual orientation discrimination which should no longer
be ignored by any international human rights platform of real significance.



Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: + 45 4049 5297

EURO-LETTER

No. 73 				 September 1999

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European Region of
the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and Lesbian International
Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National Association for Gays and
Lesbians.

Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen and Soeren
Baatrup.
Contact to Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@... URL:
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033 0840
Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V, Denmark 
You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to 
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters are
available on the Internet at  http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html
******************

IN THIS ISSUE
DRAFT PROTOCOL BROADENING THE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN
CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS PUBLISHED BY COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
BELGIUMS NEW GOVERNMENT COALITION PROMISES LEGAL BREAKTHROOUGH
NEWS FROM THE NETHERLANDS
AUSTRIA: CRIMINAL PERSECUTION OF GAY MEN AT NEW PEAK

******************
Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in Europe
can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm
A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding same-sex partners can
be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm


DRAFT PROTOCOL BROADENING THE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN
CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS PUBLISHED BY COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
By Nigel Warner and Robert Wintemute

The anti-discrimination provisions set out in Article 14 of the European
Convention on Human Rights have always suffered from a major limitation: they
apply only in respect of one of the other rights protected by the Convention. 
Thus, an act of discrimination is not in violation of Article 14 of the
Convention unless the act affects or relates to one of the other rights listed
in the Convention, such as the right to respect for private and family life, or
the right to freedom of expression or association.  Many acts of discrimination
are not related to one of these "Convention rights", and thus fall outside the
protection of the Convention.

For many years now concerns have been expressed at this weakness, particularly
in relation to discrimination on grounds of gender or race.  In March 1998 the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe reacted to reports from its
Steering Committee on Equality between Women and Men and from the European
Committee on Racism and Employment by instructing the Steering Committee on
Human Rights to develop proposals for a Protocol which would broaden the
anti-discrimination provisions of the Convention, so that freedom from
discrimination would become a free-standing right, rather than being limited to
the "Convention rights".

This was a historic development: it would represent the first change to the
anti-discrimination provisions of the Convention in the nearly 50 years of its
existence, and would count amongst the most important developments of the
Convention.

ILGA Europe saw this as an opportunity to update the anti-discrimination
provisions in other ways, particularly, by including specific references to
"sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in the list of grounds on which
discrimination is prohibited.  Although these items are not referred to
specifically, the list of grounds is not exhaustive, and they are usually
considered to be covered by the catch-all phrase "other status".  However the
Court has never ruled on this.  Moreover, their explicit mention in the list of
grounds would constitute a symbolic declaration of the greatest importance. 
Accordingly, ILGA Europe made submissions to the Steering Committee on Human
Rights arguing for the express inclusion of the terms "sexual orientation" and
"gender identity". ILGA Europe also argued that age and disability should be
included in the list of grounds.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has now published its
preferred version of the Protocol which will amend the rights in Article 14 of
the European Convention. Extracts from the draft Protocol and from the
accompanying Explanatory Report are included at the end of this article.  The
full texts can be found at: http://www.coe.fr/cm/dec/1999/677bis/42.htm

The draft Protocol will now be reviewed by the Court and by the Parliamentary
Assembly before being finally accepted by the Committee of Ministers.  Assuming
this happens, it would then be for each member state to ratify the Protocol,
which would come into force once a certain minimum number of states had ratified
it.

There is good news and bad news.

The bad news: the list of prohibited grounds in the draft Protocol includes
neither sexual orientation nor gender identity (nor, for that matter, does it
include age or disability)

The good news:

1.  The draft Protocol, if ratified, will indeed bring about a major
strengthening of the anti-discrimination provisions of the Convention, which
potentially will be to the benefit of LGBT cases. All discrimination with regard
to "rights set forth by law" will require an objective and reasonable
justification under Protocol No. 12. "Any right set forth by law" (Article 1(1))
covers at least all discrimination in primary and secondary legislation and
therefore (in most countries) discrimination in relation to civil marriage,
immigration, adoption, donor insemination, etc.  What matters is not that the
right the LGBT applicant is seeking is already "set forth by law", but that the
right is granted to other (heterosexual or non-transsexual) people by law.

Any public sector rule, practice, policy, or decision that is not seen as "set
forth by law" (perhaps the UK armed forces' ban on LGB personnel?) is covered by
Article 1(2) of Protocol No. 12, which prohibits discrimination by "any public
authority"."

So any discrimination has to have an "OBJECTIVE AND REASONABLE" justification
for it not to be in violation of the draft protocol. Of course, it will be for
the Court to determine what is "objective and reasonable".  Its view of this may
well differ from ours!

In principle, the draft Protocol applies only to discrimination by governments
or government agencies.  It does not therefore deal with discrimination by one
private party against another. This is like all of the rights in the Convention,
which can only be enforced against the government of a Council of Europe member
state.  But it will be possible to argue that a government's failure to protect
a private party against discrimination by another private party is a violation
of the Protocol.

The advantages of the draft Protocol can be summed up as follows:

(A)  It will make it easier to establish a case of sexual orientation or gender
identity discrimination under the Convention. An LGBT applicant will not need to
show how the discrimination affects their right to respect for private and
family life under Article 8, and instead will be able to go straight to Protocol
No. 12.

(B)  If the Court imposes an obligation on public authorities not to engage in a
particular kind of sexual orientation discrimination (e.g., in employment), it
will put pressure on the legislature in each member state to pass legislation
extending the obligation to private parties in that member state (to remove the
anomaly that protection against discrimination depends on whether the employer
is in the public or private sector).

So, if Protocol No. 12 goes through as is, it will still be extremely valuable
and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people should concentrate on
ensuring that as many member states as possible ratify it as soon as possible.

2.  Although the Protocol itself does not mention sexual orientation, the
Explanatory Memorandum does make a reference in paragraph 20, as set out at the
end of this article.  While this is no substitute for the express inclusion of
"sexual orientation" (and "gender identity" for that matter) in the draft
Protocol, it is still an important step forward. It would be nice to be able to
claim that the presence of the words "sexual orientation" in the text of the
Explanatory Memorandum was the result of ILGA Europe lobbying.  However, it is
rumoured that the words were already included before we made our submission. At
least we may have helped to keep them there.

THE PROTOCOL (MAIN SECTIONS)

Draft Protocol No. 12


The member States of the Council of Europe signatory hereto,

Having regard to the fundamental principle according to which all persons are
equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law;¨
Being resolved to take further steps to promote the equality of all persons
through the collective enforcement of a general prohibition of discrimination by
means of the Convention for the Protection of Human  Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Convention");
Reaffirming that the principle of non discrimination does not prevent States
Parties from taking measures in order to promote full and effective equality,
provided that there is an objective and reasonable justification for those
measures,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1 - General prohibition of discrimination

The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without
discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language,  religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a
national minority, property, birth or other status.

No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground such
as those mentioned in paragraph 1.


EXTRACT FROM EXPLANATORY REPORT

20. The list of non-discrimination grounds in Article 1 is identical to that in
Article 14 of the
Convention. This solution was considered preferable over others, such as
including explicitly
certain additional non-discrimination grounds (for example, disability, sexual
orientation, age), not
because of a lack of awareness that such grounds have become particularly
important in today's societies as compared to the time of drafting of Article 14
of the Convention, but because such an inclusion was considered unnecessary from
a legal point of view since the list of non-discrimination grounds is not
exhaustive, and because inclusion of any particular additional ground might give
rise to unwarranted a contrario interpretations as regards discrimination based
on grounds not so included. It is recalled that the European Court of Human
Rights has already applied Article 14 in relation to discrimination grounds not
explicitly mentioned in that provision.



BELGIUMS NEW GOVERNMENT COALITION PROMISES LEGAL BREAKTHROOUGH
By Remko van Kol

The remarkable defeat in the recent held elections for SP/PS and CVP/PSC, the
traditionally strong social democrat and christian democrat parties, is hoped to
have a positive effect on the legal situation for glbs. In previous governments,
particularly due to the resistance by the christian democrats, no serious
progress could be found on these issues. The new federal government coalition of
liberals, social democrats and greens, recently issued the text of their Policy
Agreement. In this important settlement of joint policy goals for the
government, the following passage was agreed to by the three parties:
"to the Parliament, a general anti-discrimination bill will be proposed, that
has as it's goal to prevent any [unjustified] discrimination, more in particular
on account of sexual disposition. At the same time, a full-fledged legal
partnership arrangement will be developed. The law of 23-11-98 that holds the
introduction of legal cohabitation, must be executed immediately."  For the
anti-discrimination bill, a good proposal has already been developed last year
in a working group of the parliament's Senate, that then found the support of
representatives of both coalition and opposition parties in the new
situation.For the legal cohabitation, the promises don't go as far as the
opening of civil marriage to same sex partners, but are hoped to settle at least
an equal treatment for all those living together unmarried.

On the flemish level, the minister of equal opportunities, promised to develop
an overall equal opportunities policy for gays and lesbians.


NEWS FROM THE NETHERLANDS
By Kees Waldijk

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe have finally proposed a text
for a Twelfth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. This Autumn
the text will be debated in the Parliamentary Assembly. The Protocol would give
a far more comprehensive protection against discrimination on any ground, than
so far provided for by Article 14 of the Convention.

Sexual orientation does not figure in the text, but it gets a mention in
paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Report, as you can see at:
http://www.coe.fr/cm/dec/1999/677bis/42.htm
Astrid Mattijssen and Nancy Maxwell informed me, that the article they wrote,
together with Charlene Smith, on lesbian and gay parenthood and adoption in the
USA and The Netherlands has just been published in the Electronic Journal of
Comparative Law. "Legal Protections for All of the Children: Dutch-American
Comparison of Lesbian and Gay Parent Adoptions" is now available at
http://law.kub.nl/ejcl  Click on "Current Issue Vol 3.1" and follow the
directions to download the article.
Robert Peden of the New Zealand Ministry of Justice informed me that their same
sex couples and the law report, and a more detailed background paper, is now
available on the Ministry's website at http://www.justice.govt.nz.


AUSTRIA: CRIMINAL PERSECUTION OF GAY MEN AT NEW PEAK
By Helmuth Graupner

According to the Criminal Statistics for 1998 last year 35 convictions under the
antigay statute Art. 209 CC (which stipulates a special supplemental minimum age
limit of 18 for gay men additional to the general age limit of 14, which covers
all kinds of sexual relations alike: gay, lesbian, heterosexual), become final.

Since the vote on the abolishment of Art. 209 CC in the Austrian parliament on
27th November 1996 (which led to a tied vote) criminal persecution of gay men in
Austria keeps on intensifying (cf. also Euroletter 69). While between 1991 and
1996 the number of convictions amounted to 14 to 20 per year this number
increased to 26 in 1997 and now, with 35 final convictions, again reached the
number of the eighties.

Convictions under Art. 209 CC are based on consensual homosexual contact with
young men between 14 and 18; sexual relations completely legal if they were
heterosexual or lesbian.





Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
URL: http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: +45 4049 5297

EURO-LETTER No. 72 		 August 1999

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European Region of
the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and Lesbian International
Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National Association for Gays and
Lesbians. Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen
and Soeren Baatrup.  Contact to Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@... URL:
http://www.steff.suite.dk Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033
0840 Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V,
Denmark  You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to 
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters are
available on the Internet at  http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html


IN THIS ISSUE
SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL WILL RETURN TO UK PARLIAMENT
SWITZERLAND CONSIDERS COUPLES' RIGHTS
PORTUGUESE CASE ON GAY PARENTING ACCEPTED BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
DANISH GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS GAY EU EMPLOYEE IN COURT CASE
DUTCH BILL TO OPEN MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX PARTNERS
DUTCH BILL ALLOWING ADOPTION FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES

Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in Europe
can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm
A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding same-sex partners can
be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm


SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL WILL RETURN TO UK PARLIAMENT
UK Home Office press statement (23/07/99):

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, aimed at equalising the age of consent for
homosexuals and creating an offence of abuse of trust, will be re-introduced in
the next Parliamentary session and, if necessary, the Parliament Acts will be
used to secure its passage, Home Secretary Jack Straw said today.

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill has two key aims:

1. Establishing equality before the law by equalising the age of consent for
homosexuals with that of heterosexuals at 16 (17 in Northern Ireland). It
fulfils a UK commitment to the European Commission of Human Rights in two cases,
Sutherland and Morris, currently before the European Court of Human Rights.

2. Creating an offence of abuse of trust designed to protect the most vulnerable
children and young people. The offence would apply where a person aged 18 or
over has sexual intercourse or engages in any other sexual activity with a
person under that age, if the older person is in a position of trust in
circumstances specified in the Bill.

The Bill was originally introduced into the House of Commons on 16 December
1998, and was subject to a free vote. It was overwhelmingly endorsed by the
House of Commons, but rejected by the House of Lords on 13 April 1999 by 222
votes to 146.

The Home Secretary has been given dispensation to announce the Government's
intentions to reintroduce the Bill prior to the Queen's speech. This is because
when considering the Government's application for a further extension in the
cases before it, the European Court of Human Rights needs to know that the Bill
will definitely be reintroduced next session.

The two cases currently at the European Court of Human Rights brought by Euan
Sutherland and Chris Morris have been stayed pending parliamentary consideration
of the Bill.

Home Secretary Jack Straw said:

"We have today, with the agreement of the applicants, sought a further extension
from the European Court of Human Rights in the stayed cases of Sutherland and
Morris versus the UK.

"We have informed the Court, in the context of this request, that the Government
intends to reintroduce the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill next session and if
necessary the Parliament Acts will be used to secure its passage."


SWITZERLAND CONSIDERS COUPLES' RIGHTS
By Rex Wockner

The Swiss government has initiated a complex process that should result in
recognition of gay/- lesbian couples next year.

The most likely outcome will be a Scandinavian-style registered partnership law
that grants most of the rights of matrimony.

On June 21, the Legal Commission of the National Council expressed support for
registered partnership by a vote of 18-3 and rejected the notion of full gay
marriage by a vote of 14-5.

A recent survey found that 68 percent of Swiss support legal recognition of gay
partnerships.

Any measure passed by lawmakers could be subject to a national referendum if
100,000 Swiss sign a petition demanding a say in the matter.


PORTUGUESE CASE ON GAY PARENTING ACCEPTED BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Information note from the European Court of Human Rights

November - December 1998

Note: The summaries contained in this Information Note are prepared by the
Registry and are not binding on the Court. They are provided for information
purposes only and are not intended to replace the judgments and decisions to
which they relate. Consequently, they should not be quoted or cited as
authority. All judgments and decisions referred to in the Information Note are
available for consultation in the Court s database, accessible via the Internet
at the following address: http://www.dhcour.coe.fr/hudoc.

The summaries are presented under the relevant article of the Convention and are
preceded by a keyword and a brief description of the subject-matter of the
complaint, followed by the Court's decision.

ARTICLE 8
PRIVATE LIFE
Parent obliged to hide his homosexuality during meetings with his daughter:
admissible.

SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA - Portugal (Nº 33290/96)
Decision 1.12.98 [Section IV]
(See Family life, below).

FAMILY LIFE
Refusal to grant custody to a parent living in a homosexual relationship:
admissible.

SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA - Portugal (Nº 33290/96)
Decision 1.12.98
[Section IV]

The applicant married in 1983. A girl, M., was born to the couple in 1987. Since
1990, the applicant has been living in a homosexual relationship. In the divorce
proceedings, the applicant and his spouse concluded an
agreement whereby custody was granted to the mother, the applicant being awarded
a right of access. However, M. s mother refused him access and the applicant
filed a request for custody to be awarded to him. The court acceded to this
request in a judgment delivered in 1994 and M. lived with the applicant until
1995, when she was allegedly abducted by her mother (criminal proceedings are
currently pending in this connection). His former wife appealed against this
decision and the appeal court set aside the judgment, holding that, as a general
rule, a young child should not be separated from its mother, but it also added
that a homosexual environment could not be considered to be the healthiest for a
child s development, given that this was an abnormal situation. Nevertheless,
the court awarded a right of access to the applicant, who maintains that it is
not being honoured as the whereabouts of M. are unknown. No appeal was filed
against this decision. The applicant, relying on Article 8 in conjunction with
Article 14, alleges that the appeal court awarded custody to M. s mother on the
basis of his homosexuality. He also claims that the appeal court s decision
constitutes an unjustified interference with his right to respect for family
life, and also with his right to respect for his private life in that it was
specified that he must hide his homosexuality in his meetings with his daughter.

Admissible under Article 8 and Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.

ARTICLE 14

DISCRIMINATION
Refusal to grant custody to a parent living in a homosexual relationship:
admissible.

SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA - Portugal (Nº 33290/96)
Decision 1.12.98
[Section IV]
(See Article 8, above).


DANISH GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS GAY EU EMPLOYEE IN COURT CASE
By Steffen Jensen

The Danish government has decided to support Sven Englund in his case at the
European Court of Justice against the EU Council of Ministers.

Sven Englund, a Swedish employee of the EU Council of Ministers, married to
another man under the Swedish registered partnership law had asked his employer
to treat him (and his partner) like his married heterosexual colleagues (and
their spouses) under the terms of the EU Staff Regulations and thus claimed
household allowance. The Council refused, so he brought the case before the
Court in First Instance which rejected his plaint 28 January 1999.

Sven Englund has appealed the decision of the Court in First Instance to the
Court itself. The appeal has been backed by the Swedish government and now also
by the Danish government.


DUTCH BILL TO OPEN MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX PARTNERS
By Kees Waaldijk

Below you will find a translation (plus some comments and explanations) that I
have made of the bill and explanatory memorandum on the opening up of marriage
to same-sex partners.

Soon the text will be available on http.//www.coc.nl/index.html?file=marriage

Text of Dutch bill and explanatory memorandum on the opening up of marriage for
same-sex partners
introduced in Parliament on 8 July 1999 printed as parliamentary paper nr. 26672

Summary-translation by Kees Waaldijk LL.M.
Universiteit Leiden, The Netherlands, waaldijk@...

Draft-version 23 July 1999

All explanations and comments between square brackets have been added by me.
Square brackets are also used to indicate omitted or summarised passages.

For further background information on the lengthy process leading up to this
bill, and for future updates on its passage through parliament and possible
amendments to it, see: http.//www.coc.nl/index.html?file=marriage

This is an unofficial translation and I am not a professional translator. Please
inform me when putting this text on any internet-site. Please consult me before
publishing it on paper. All copyrights are mine (W).


Parliamentary paper 26672

Amendment of Book 1 of the Civil Code, concerning the opening up of marriage for
persons of the same sex (Act on the Opening up of Marriage)

NR. 2: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

We Beatrix [...];
[preamble:]

considering that it is desirable to open up marriage for persons of the same sex
and to amend Book 1 of the Civil Code accordingly;

Article I
A and B
[amendments to articles 20 and 20a, concerning administrative duties of the
registrar]

C
[amendment of article 28, concerning the change of sex in the birth certificates
of transsexuals: Being not-married shall no longer be a condition for such
change.]

D
Article 30 shall read as follows:

Article 30
1. A marriage can be contracted by two persons of different sex or of the same
sex.
2. The law only considers marriage in its civil relations.

[Until now, article 30 only consists of the text of the second paragraph.]

E
Article 33 shall read as follows:

Article 33
A person can at the same time only be linked through marriage with one person.

[Until now, the text of article 33 only outlaws heterosexual polygamy.]

F
In article 49a, paragraph 1, the words "with a person of the opposite sex" shall
be inserted after the word "marriage".

[This article deals with declaration of non-impediment, to be given to Dutch
nationals who want to contract a marriage in another country. Such declarations
shall now only be given to Dutch nationals wishing to contract a marriage with a
person of the opposite sex.]

G
A new article 77a shall be inserted:

Article 77a
1. When two persons intend to convert their marriage into a registered
partnership, the registrar of the domicile of one of them shall make a
certificate of conversion. If the spouses are domiciled outside the Netherlands
and want to convert their marriage into a registered partnership in the
Netherlands, and at least one of them has Dutch nationality, conversion will
take place with the registrar in The Hague.
2. A conversion terminates the marriage and starts the registered partnership on
the moment the certificate of conversion is recorded in the register of
registered partnerships. The conversion does not affect the paternity over
children born before the conversion. Neither does it affect the consequences of
the marriage.

H
[amendments to article 80a, concerning registered partnership:
The minimum age for marriage and registered partnership is 18, but for marriage
it is reduced to 16, if the woman is pregnant or has given birth; this exception
shall now also apply to registered partnership.

Furthermore, annulment of an underage marriage is not possible after the female
spouse has become pregnant; the same shall now apply to an underage registered
partnership.]

I
A new article 88f shall be inserted:

Article 88f
1. When two persons intend to convert their registered partnership into a
marriage, the registrar of the domicile of one of them shall make a certificate
of conversion. If the spouses are domiciled outside the Netherlands and want to
convert their registered partnership into a marriage in the Netherlands, and at
least one of them has Dutch nationality, conversion will take place with the
registrar in The Hague.
2. A conversion terminates the registered partnership and starts the marriage on
the moment the certificate of conversion is recorded in the register of
marriages. The conversion does not affect the paternity over children born
before the conversion. Neither does it affect the consequences of the registered
partnership.

J
Article 395 shall read as follows:

Article 395
Without prejudice to article 395a, a stepparent is obliged to provide the costs
of living for the minor children of his spouse or registered partner, but only
during his marriage or registered partnership and only if they belong to his
nuclear family.

[Until now this article only applies to marriage, not to registered
partnership.]

K
Article 395a, second paragraph, shall read as follows:

2. A stepparent is obliged to provide [the costs of living and of studying] for
the adult children of his spouse or registered partner, but only during his
marriage or registered partnership and only if they belong to his nuclear family
and are under the age of 21.

[Until now this article only applies to marriage, not to registered
partnership.]

Article II

Within five years after the entering into force of this Act, Our Minister of
Justice shall send Parliament a report on the effects of this Act in practice,
with special reference to the relation to registered partnership.

Article III

This Act shall enter into force on a date to be determined by royal decree.

Article IV

This Act shall be cited as: Act on the Opening up of Marriage.





Parliamentary paper 26672

Amendment of Book 1 of the Civil Code, concerning the opening up of marriage for
persons of the same sex (Act on the Opening up of Marriage)

NR. 3: EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

[The explanatory memorandum is signed by Mr. Job Cohen, State-Secretary for
Justice.
It is a lengthy text. Therefore I have only translated some brief passages.]

[...]

Amendments - where necessary - in other books of the Civil Code and in other
legislation will be proposed in a separate bill. [...]

1. History

[...]
From the government's manifesto of 1998 (Parliamentary Papers II, 1997/98,
26024-9, p. 68) it appears that the principle of equal treatment of homosexual
and heterosexual couples has been decisive in the debate about the opening up of
marriage for persons of the same sex.

2. Equalities and differences between marriage for persons of different sex and
marriage for persons of the same sex.

[...]
As to the conditions for the contracting of a marriage no difference is made
between heterosexuals and homosexuals [...].

[For example, only one of the persons wishing to marry needs to have either his
or her domicile in the Netherlands or Dutch nationality. Also, two brothers or
two sisters will not be allowed to marry each other, although the bill forgets
to amend article 41 accordingly; an oversight which no doubt will get
corrected.]

The differences between marriage for persons of different sex and marriage for
persons of the same sex only lie in the consequences of marriage. They concern
two aspects: firstly the relation to children and secondly the international
aspect. [...]

[According to article 199 the husband of the woman who gives birth during
marriage is presumed to be the father of the child.] It would be pushing things
too far to assume that a child born in a marriage of two women would legally
descend from both women. That would be stretching partnership was introduced in
the Netherlands on 1 January 1998. In 1998 4556 couples (including 1550
different-sex couples) have used the possibility of contracting a registered
partnership [...]. Compared to other countries with registered partnership
legislation the interest in registered partnership in the Netherlands is
relatively high [...].

The relatively high number of different-sex couples that contracted a registered
partnership in 1998 and the results of a quick scan evaluation research [Yvonne
Scherf, Registered Partnership in the Netherlands. A quick scan, The Hague:
Ministry of Justice 1999; that is the English translation of the original
report] make it plausible that there is a need for a marriage-like institution
devoid of the symbolism attached to marriage.

Therefore the government wants to keep the institution of registered partnership
in place, for the time being. After five years the development of same-sex
marriage and of registered partnership will be evaluated. Then [...] it will be
possible to assess whether registered partnership should be abolished. [...]

4. International aspects

[...]
As the Kortmann-committee has stated (p. 18) the question relating to the
completely new legal phenomenon of marriage between persons of the same sex
concerns the interpretation of the notion of public order to be expected in
other countries. Such interpretation relates to social opinion about
homosexuality. The outcome of a survey by the said committee among member-states
of the Council of Europe was that recognition can only be expected in very few
countries. This is not surprising. [...]
Apart from the recognition of marriage as such, it is relevant whether or not in
other countries legal consequences will be attached to the marriage of persons
of the same-sex. [...]
As a result of this spouses of the same sex may encounter various practical and
legal problems abroad. This is something the future spouses of the same sex will
have to take into account. [...] However, this problem of "limping legal
relations" also exists for registered partners, as well as for cohabiting
same-sex partners who have not contracted a registered partnership or marriage.

5. Conversion of marriage into registered partnership and of registered
partnership into marriage

[...]

6. Adaptation of computerised systems

[...]

7. Explanation per article

[...]
Article I - D

[...] The principle of gender-neutrality of marriage is expressed by [the new
article 30, paragraph 1].

[...]

Article III
[...] The aim is to let this Act enter into force on 1 January 2001.

[Given the clear commitment of the three coalition parties to this bill,
expressed in the government manifesto of August 1998, the passage through the
Lower House of Parliament should be politically unproblematic. The bill would
probably also get a majority in the Upper House. All this would easily take more
than one year, hence the foreseen date in 2001. The greatest risk for the
passage of this bill is a possible breakdown of the current coalition of social
democrats, liberals, and social-liberal democrats. That could happen over a
number of completely unrelated issues. Such a breakdown would normally lead to
new elections, and thus at least to delay in the passage of the bill.
Furthermore, if then a new coalition would be formed including the christian
democrats, the new government might withdraw the bill. But that is mere
speculation.]


DUTCH BILL ALLOWING ADOPTION FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES
By Kees Waaldijk

Below you will find a translation (plus some comments and explanations) that I
have made of the bill and explanatory memorandum on allowing adoption by
same-sex couples, introduced in Parliament on the same day as the bill on the
opening up of marriage.

Soon the text will be available on www.coc.nl/index.html?file=marriage

Text of Dutch bill and explanatory memorandum on adoption by persons of the same
sex
introduced in Parliament on 8 July 1999 printed as parliamentary paper nr. 26673

Summary-translation by Kees Waaldijk LL.M.
Universiteit Leiden, The Netherlands, waaldijk@...


Draft-version 28 July 1999

All explanations and comments between square brackets have been added by me.
Square brackets are also used to indicate omitted or summarised passages.

For further background information on the lengthy process leading up to this
bill, and for future updates on its passage through parliament and possible
amendments to it, see: www.coc.nl/index.html?file=marriage  .

This is an unofficial translation and I am not a professional translator. Please
inform me when putting this text on any internet-site. Please consult me before
publishing it on paper. All copyrights are mine (W).

Parliamentary paper 26673

Amendment of Book 1 of the Civil Code
(adoption by persons of the same sex)

NR. 2: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

We Beatrix [...];
[preamble:]

considering that it is desirable to amend the rules on adoption and related
provisions in Book 1 of the Civil Code as regards the introduction of the
possibility of adoption by persons of the same sex;

Article I

Book 1 of the Civil Code shall be amended as follows:

A, B and C
[consequential amendments to articles 5, 204 and 207]

D
Article 227 shall be amended as follows:

a. The first paragraph shall read as follows:

1. Adoption is effected by a decision of the district court at the joint request
of two persons or at the request of one person alone.

[i.e. the words 'of different sex' after 'two persons' are deleted]

b. A second sentence shall be added to the second paragraph

['2. The joint request by two persons can only be done, if they have been living
together during at least three continuous years immediately before the
submission of the request.']

       reading as follows:

The request by an adopter who is the spouse or life partner of the parent, can
only be done, if he has been living together with that parent during at least
three continuous years immediately before the submission of the request.

c. The third paragraph shall read as follows:

3. The request can only be granted, if the adoption is in the evident interest
of the child, if it is also certain that the child has nothing to expect anymore
from its parent or parents, and if the conditions specified in article 228 are
fulfilled as well.

[i.e. the words 'it is certain that the child has nothing to expect anymore from
its parent of parents' are inserted]

E
Article 228, first paragraph, shall be amended as follows:

a. Sub-paragraph (f) shall read as follows:

f. [the condition] that for at least three continuous years the adopter has been
caring for the child and bringing it up, or, in the case of joint adoption by
two persons, that for at least one year they have been caring for the child and
bringing it up; if the spouse or life partner of the parent of the child is
adopting, the condition is that the adopter and that parent have been caring for
the child and bringing it up for at least one year;

b. [consequential amendments in sub-paragraph (g)]

F, G and H
[consequential amendments in article 229, 253b and 327]

Article II

[transitional provision]

Article III

This Act shall enter into force on a date to be determined by royal decree.




Parliamentary paper 26673

Amendment of Book 1 of the Civil Code
(adoption by persons of the same sex)

NR. 3: EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

[The explanatory memorandum is signed by Mr. Job Cohen, State-Secretary for
Justice. It is a lengthy text. Therefore I have only translated some brief
passages.]

General

1. Introduction

[...] A child being cared for and brought up in a lasting relationship of two
women or two men, has a right to protection in that relationship, including
legal protection. Both women or both men have taken on the responsibility for
the care and upbringing of the child and readily want to have that
responsibility. In the interest of the child this relationship with these adults
deserves protection.

In stead of through changing the law of descent, such protection shall be
offered in the form of the adoption possibilities provided for in this bill, in
accordance with the advice of the Kortmann-Committee [advising the government
about the opening up of marriage and adoption in 1997], as well as in the forms
of joint authority for a parent and his partner and of joint custody (both
introduced by legislation taking effect on 1 January 1998). An important
difference between descent and adoption is that adoption always is an
abstraction from descent. [...] Because parenting by two persons of the same sex
always involves a form of non-biological parenting, we have opted for a change
of the law of adoption and not of the law of descent. [...]

2. Scope of the legislative proposal

The bill relates to adoption of children in the Netherlands. The last years not
more than 60 to 100 Dutch children have been adopted under the Dutch law of
adoption [not counting stepparent adoptions], for in the Netherlands only rarely
a mother does not bring up her own child.

The bill primarily aims to make adoption by persons of the same sex possible.
Probably this will mostly take the form of adoption by the female partner of the
mother of the child, or of adoption by the male partner of the father of a
child. This form is similar to the existing form of stepparent adoptions.

The reason why we do not propose to extend the possibilities for intercountry
adoption, is that in that context other facts need to be taken into account. In
1997 the Ministry of Justice studied the legislation on intercountry adoption,
and its application in practice, in six countries from where children come to
the Netherlands, and in six other countries where such children are adopted. The
study showed that in practice there is a strong preference for intercountry
adoption by a married couple. [...]

3. The new condition for adoption

It is being proposed that adoption - apart from the already existing conditions
- will only be possible if the child has nothing to expect anymore from its
original parent of parents. This criterion is being proposed irrespective of
whether it is adoption by persons of the same sex or adoption by persons of
different sexes. [...]

The words 'parent or parents' refer to legal parents as well as to biological
parents. [...]

The criterion that the child has nothing to expect anymore from its original
parent of parents, relates to the parent-child relationship. Therefore the
question is not whether the child has not or will not have any de facto contact
with its original parents. The relevant issue is whether the child can expect
that its parents are capable of giving substance to their parenthood. Only if it
is certain that the child has nothing to expect from its original parents as
parents, the new condition for adoption will be fulfilled. [...]

There will be cases in which this question can easily be answered, as in the
case of duo-mothers where a child has been conceived through artificial
insemination with semen of an anonymous donor. Since the ties with the legal
mother, who has given birth to the child, will not be severed by the adoption,
and because no other -- biological - parent can be indicated, the new criterion
shall be fulfilled.

The balancing may be different if the child is conceived with the semen of an
acquaintance of the mother and/or of her partner. [...]

4. The relation to the existing conditions for adoption

[...]

5. The relation to joint authority

[...] Since in the Netherlands joint authority is available as an adequate
alternative for adoption, aimed at protecting the family life of a child with
its de facto carers/upbringers, it may be stated that adoption in many cases is
not really necessary anymore. [...]

6. Strong and weak adoption

[a brief discussion of why no weak form of adoption is proposed to exist
alongside the existing, strong form]

7. Consequences for private international law

The bill, intending to allow adoption by persons of the same sex, only relates
to adoptions of children with their ordinary residence in the Netherlands. To
these, as to adoptions in the Netherlands by persons of different sexes, Dutch
law is applicable. So problems relating to the applicability of foreign
substantive laws that do not know adoption by same-sex partners, will hardly
arise. [...]

The question whether adoptions by persons of the same sex, decided upon in the
Netherlands, will be recognised in other countries is of a different nature.
Since the legal developments abroad with respect to this form of adoption, have
not progressed as far as in the Netherlands, it may be expected that, for the
time being, the family ties created by such adoptions will not be recognised
abroad. [...] Possibly, the parental authority linked to these adoptions could
be recognised in some countries. [...]

Explanation per article

[...]

Article III

[...] This article will make it possible to let the Act enter into force on the
same day as the separate Act [still to be introduced] that will adjust other
Acts to the possibility of adoption by persons of the same sex. The aim is [...]
to let this Act enter into force on 1 January 2001.

[Given the clear commitment of the three coalition parties to this bill,
expressed in the government manifesto of August 1998, the passage through the
Lower House of Parliament should be politically unproblematic. The bill would
probably also get a majority in the Upper House. All this would easily take more
than one year, hence the foreseen date in 2001. The greatest risk for the
passage of this bill is a possible breakdown of the current coalition of social
democrats, liberals, and social-liberal democrats. That could happen over a
number of completely unrelated issues. Such a breakdown would normally lead to
new elections, and thus at least to delay in the passage of the bill.
Furthermore, if then a new coalition would be formed including the christian
democrats, the new government might withdraw the bill. But that is mere
speculation.]




Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
URL: http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: +45 4049 5297

1EURO-LETTER

No. 71

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European Region of
the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and Lesbian International
Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National Association for Gays and
Lesbians. Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen
and Soeren Baatrup.  Contact to Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@... URL:
http://www.steff.suite.dk Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033
0840 Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V,
Denmark  You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to 
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters are
available on the Internet at  http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html


IN THIS ISSUE
EU COMMISSION RECOGNISES PARTNERSHIP
ILGA-EUROPE AND THE PLANS FOR AN EU BILL OF RIGHTS
LESBIAN, GAY AND BISEXUAL RIGHTS TAKE CENTRE STAGE IN ELECTION OF NEW
SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
SAME SEX IMMIGRATION IN UK
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA DECRIMINALISED HOMOSEXUALITY IN 1998
SEXUAL OFFENCE AND AGE OF CONSENT IN LATVIA
FINLAND TO ALLOW GAYS TO REGISTER MARRIAGE
SPANISH CITY COUNCIL MAY HAVE VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
DUTCH CABINET INTRODUCES BILLS ALLOWING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND SAME-SEX ADOPTION

Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in Europe
can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm
A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding same-sex partners can
be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm


EU COMMISSION RECOGNISES PARTNERSHIP
From "Commission en Direct" No. 128, 20-26 May 1999 and Egalite

Commission extending the notion of "family" in staff regulations.
Taking the UN, the World Bank, KLM and IBM as an example: EGALITE members Peter
Frei, Giovanna Bucaco and Geert Roosens would like the EU institutions to
recognise all relationships, whether registered or not, straight, gay or
lesbian.

Homosexual couples who are officially registered in Denmark, Sweden and Holland
may benefit from a Commission household allowance, pending a "special reasoned
decision".

Egalite, the organisation for gay and lesbian equality in the EU institutions,
is fighting to extend this possibility to non-registered partnerships, whether
homosexual or heterosexual.

In 1998, an amendment to the EU Staff Regulations inserted a clause requiring
equal treatment without reference to sexual orientation. Nevertheless a specific
marital or other legal status is still required to get a household allowance
from the Commission.

This means that only gays and lesbians who come from the three countries where
homosexuals can choose to make their union official and legally binding -
Denmark, Sweden and Holland - can benefit from a Commission household allowance,
though not automatically but on the basis of a "special reasoned decision".

So far, very few homosexual couples have applied for it. EGALITE, the
organisation for lesbian and gay equality in the European institutions, is
working to extend the notion of family within the Staff Regulations. The aim is
to include non-married same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

"A number of private companies and public institutions recognise relationships
regardless if they are registered or not, regardless of whether they are
straight or gay or lesbian. They simply follow the evolution of society", says
Peter Frey, member of EGALITE and freelance interpreter.

Together with Geert Roosens (Translation Service), President of EGALITE, he
mentions a few - KLM, IBM, United Nations and the World Bank.

Commissioner Erkki Liikanen (Personnel and Administration ) announced at the
March meeting of the EPintergroup on equal rights for gays and lesbians, that he
would propose a modification of the Staff Regulations at the end of April. This
proposition would have recognised registered and stable partners and given them
rights equivalent to those of married couples. The resignation of the Commission
is nevertheless a set back to these plans.

As it is now, married couples can obtain a household allowance, which is
automatically granted when the spouse has an income below a certain level. The
allowance can also be granted by a special reasoned decision. Registered
partners can apply for it on the basis of sharing a household. One of the
conditions is that the official, in a legal way, assumes family
responsibilities.

In the Commission, household allowance has until now been granted to one gay
couple. "It is a first and welcome step", says Geert Roosens, "but it is not a
general solution, and it certainly does not provide for equal treatment of
married and non-married couples." Danish, Swedish and Dutch homosexuals can
register their partnership according to their national law, thus assuming legal
responsibility towards each other. Sarah Evans, director of DG IX. B (Rights and
obligations; policies and social actions) explains that it is necessary to have
a legal basis in national law to grant household allowance. People have
financial responsibilities towards each other when their national law says so.

"It is inevitable that there is a difference of treatment where national law has
to be taken into account", says Sarah Evans. Not all benefits require a
registered partnership, though. Here progress has been made. Same-sex as well as
opposite-sex couples who are not married or registered can benefit from
'concubinage'. It gives the partner of an official working in the Commission
certain rights like, for example, participating in social groups and language
courses, access to certain Commission buildings and a restaurant card. Direct
financial allowance however, requires a change in the Staff Regulations.

EGALITE has already proposed a modification of the Staff Regulations concerning
partnerships. All homosexual and heterosexual couples should be able to benefit
from the rights granted to married couples. In order to determine what it takes
to form a couple, they suggest an affidavit in which couples must state, among
other things, that they have been together for more than six months and that
their relationship is not limited in time.

EGALITE is not fighting because of financial motives. "It is a question of
principle", says Geert Roosens. "The recognition of equality before the law is a
fundamental principle of human rights. Since the first version of the Staff
Regulations, European society has evolved. Besides traditional marriage, other
forms of partnership have gained legal and social recognition. The Staff
Regulations should acknowledge this reality."

Even though the European institutions have the possibility to grant household
allowance to registered partners on a special reasoned decision, this does not
provide for equality between registered partners and married couples.

In January 1999, a decision by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities showed that registered partnership does not automatically give
access to household allowance and other marital rights.

Swedish official Sven Englund had filed an appeal against his employer, the
Council of the European Union. The Council had refused to recognise his
registered partnership. On the basis of the present Staff Regulations, the Court
ruled in favour of Council and thus did not grant him the rights of a married
man. He has appealed to the European Court of Justice. Sweden supports his
appeal.

In DG IX (Personnel and Administration) they will work to include the
recognition of partnership when a new Commission sets out to complete the reform
of the Staff Regulations.

"It is not a problem of lack of willingness", says Sarah Evans. "This issue will
only be seriously clarified with a change of the Staff Regulations."


ILGA-EUROPE AND THE PLANS FOR AN EU BILL OF RIGHTS
By Kurt Krickler

Last year the European Commission had mandated a group of legal experts chaired
by Professor Spiros Simitis to study further the issue of fundamental rights in
the Union and in particular the drafting of an EU Bill of Rights.

ILGA-Europe has closely followed the preparation of the Simitis Report, not at
last as a member of the Platform of European Social NGOs, which, together with
the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), had launched a joint Bill of
Rights for the EU campaign at the 2nd European Social Policy Forum in Brussels
in June 1998.

Although the Simitis Report is completely unsatisfactory in some respects
(Platform members are extremely disappointed about its weak proposal with regard
to the recognition of social rights in such a Bill), it calls for the
incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into Community law
and of adding to this, among other things, "the right to equality of opportunity
and treatment without any distinction such as ... sexual orientation".

The Report has meanwhile been published by the Commission in several languages
and was presented at the European Forum "A European Charter of Fundamental
Rights - A Contribution to a Common Identity" organised by the German Presidency
in Cologne on 27 April (in which a representative of ILGA-Europe participated).
In this Forum, the German Presidency also announced that they would propose to
the EU Cologne Summit that a Declaration be adopted by the Member States to the
effect of embarking on the avenue of formulating such a Bill of Rights. The
Summit, however, would not adopt any text of a Charter yet. Such a text is
foreseen to be adopted under the French Presidency in the second half of the
year 2000 (and could only become Community Law by a new Treaty after another
intergovernmental conference). Details of these plans have also been published
by Agence Europe on 17 May 1999 (http://www.cc.cec./dante/7466EN.HTM).

Besides the implementation of Article 13 and the inclusion of sexual orientation
in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the recognition of
non-discrimination based on sexual orientation as a human right in a future EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights is one of ILGA-Europe's highest priorities.
ILGA-Europe will certainly continue to closely follow this process of codifying
a Bill of Rights for the EU and to lobby accordingly. This issue will,
therefore, also be subject for discussion in
the meeting between representatives of ILGA-Europe and the German EU Presidency
to take place in Bonn on 27 May.


LESBIAN, GAY AND BISEXUAL RIGHTS TAKE CENTRE STAGE IN ELECTION OF NEW
SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
By Nigel Warner

On Wednesday parliamentarians from 41 countries elected a new Secretary-General
for the Council of Europe. He is the right of centre Austrian, Walter Schwimmer,
who gained just two more votes than his main opponent, the British left of
centre candidate, Terry Davis.

Traditionally, elections for the position of Secretary-General have been settled
in advance by agreements between the political groupings within the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.  Back in mid-1998, when the
candidates were announced, this election looked little different. The Liberal
Group, which holds the balance of power in the Assembly, had a long-standing
agreement with the main right of centre party, the European People's Party: they
would support that party's candidate (Walter Schwimmer) in return for the
European People's Party's support for their candidate five years earlier. With
this agreement Walter Schwimmer was assured of victory by a comfortable margin -
perhaps 50 votes. His position was made even stronger by the fact that his main
opponent was a Briton. The other principal job at the Council of Europe, that of
President of the Parliamentary Assembly, is held by another Briton. It would be
unprecedented for the two positions to be held by one country.

But then, in August 1998, lesbian and gay rights entered the equation: ILGA
Europe was alerted to the fact that Walter Schwimmer had, on four occasions,
voted against the fundamental rights of lesbians, gay and bisexual people in the
Austrian Parliament, in breach of the human rights standards of the Council of
Europe. In particular, he had voted against the repeal of laws which imposed a
discriminatory age of consent, and which restricted the rights of freedom of
expression and freedom of association. He had also voted against granting the
right of compensation to the lesbian and gay victims of the Nazis.

ILGA Europe launched a nine-month campaign to persuade the governments and
members of the Parliamentary Assembly that a person with Walter Schwimmer's
voting record was not suitable as Secretary-General of Europe's most important
human rights organisation. Its member organisations across Europe, from the
Ukraine to Portugal, from Slovenia to Ireland, lobbied their Members of
Parliament and Foreign Ministries in opposition to Walter Schwimmer. As he
travelled around Europe promoting his candidacy, he faced hostile questioning
from parliamentarians and the media.

A particular focus for ILGA-Europe's campaign was the Liberal Group in the
Parliamentary Assembly.  ILGA Europe argued repeatedly to its members that their
responsibility lay in upholding fundamental human rights in Europe rather than
in supporting a deal over jobs between political parties.

One month before the election ILGA Europe asked the three candidates for a
public statement of their position on discrimination against lesbian and gays. 
Walter Schwimmer responded with a strong statement against such discrimination,
a statement which ILGA Europe welcomed in letters to all Representatives at the
Parliamentary Assembly.

Notwithstanding this turn of events the Liberal Group decided, on the eve of the
election, to allow its members a free vote. The rest is history: a comfortable
majority was turned into the slenderest of margins.

"Europe's lesbian and gay community has shown that it has both the political
support and the capacity to campaign effectively across some 41 countries.  We
have brought home to governments and parliamentarians that the continent's 50
million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people are a force to be
reckoned with and will not allow their rights to be trampled on", said Nigel
Warner, coordinator of the campaign for ILGA Europe.

"Homophobic individuals, be they parliamentarians, judges or civil servants, who
seek high office in Europe's human rights organisations, have been served a
clear warning: they will face determined opposition right across Europe", said
Nico Beger, ILGA-Europe Board Member and co-representative to the Council of
Europe.

Kurt Krickler, co-chair of ILGA Europe, and secretary-general of Austria's
national lesbian and gay organisation, HOSI-Wien commented: "The Austrian
government, which put forward Walter Schwimmer as candidate, has been acutely
embarrassed.  Never again, we believe, will a European government propose a
candidate for such a position in the belief that lesbian and gay rights can
safely be ignored".


BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

The Council of Europe is the continent's most important human rights
organisation, with some 41 member states subscribing to its human rights
standards.  It was set up after the Second World War with the purpose of trying
to ensure that the human rights atrocities of the 1930's and 1940's were never
repeated again in Europe. It "owns" the European Convention on Human Rights and
is the seat of the European Court of Human Rights.  It is governed by the
Foreign Ministers of its member states (who together form its "Committee of
Ministers") and by representatives from their parliaments (who make up its
"Parliamentary Assembly"). The Secretary-Generalship is important both
symbolically, and as its senior executive position.

The Council of Europe has played an historic role in the promotion of lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgendered rights in Europe.  In 1981 the Parliamentary
Assembly passed a resolution on "discrimination against homosexuals".  This was
the first such resolution in support of lesbian and gay rights by any
international parliamentary body. In the same year the European Court of Human
Rights ruled that the ban on the gay male relationships in Northern Ireland was
in breach of the European Convention.  Again, this was a "first" for any
international human rights tribunal.  During the 1990s the Council of Europe's
insistence that new members must repeal legislation banning lesbian and gay
relationships has been responsible for the almost total repeal of such
legislation in the European countries of the former Soviet bloc.


SAME SEX IMMIGRATION IN UK
Legal update by Stonewall

The Home Office has now announced the outcome of its long awaited review of the
'unmarried partners' concession. The period of cohabitation required before
being allowed to stay has been reduced from four years to two years.

The announcement was made in the form of a response to a written question on 16
June 1999. We will be putting together a detailed briefing shortly
however the main points are:

The period of cohabitation has been reduced from four to two years
The probationary period has been increased from one to two years
People who are illegally here will also be considered under the new policy
If a relationship ends through the death of one partner or proven domestic
violence during the probationary period the foreign partner will still be
allowed to stay
We have agreed with the Home Office that pending cases should be dealt with as
quickly as possible and that we would provide a list of all outstanding cases.
If you know of any pending cases that fit the new criteria I would be grateful
for details. Ideally we would like name, nationality date of birth and Home
Office reference number.

The policy takes immediate effect and successful applicants will be given
permission to remain for an initial probationary period of two years (with the
right to work etc). If the relationship is still subsisting after this two-year
period the applicant can then apply for permanent residency in the UK. If the
relationship ends during the two-year probationary period due to
the death of a partner or proven domestic violence, the applicant will still be
entitled to permanent residency.

This is a major achievement for the group, brought about by patient lobbying and
persuasive arguments. Everyone involved should be congratulated, but particular
tribute is due to those couples who have, through their individual cases,
survived the difficulties and contradictions of the four-year rule.



BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA DECRIMINALISED HOMOSEXUALITY IN 1998
By Bjørn Skolander

For some time there has been conflicting data concerning legislation dealing
with homosexuality in the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republika Srpska.

According to a report from the Swedish Embassy in Sarajevo (13 March 1998) to
RFSL (The Swedish gay and lesbian organisation) a new penal code for the
Federation of B&H was being worked out with the assistance of international
legal experts. In the new penal code homosexuality would no longer be a criminal
offence. When it came to R. Srpska the work on a new penal code started in
January 1998.

ILGA's World Legal Survey (http://www.ilga.org/Information/legal_survey/) states
"...homosexuality isn't illegal any more, and the age of consent is now 16
years. The law changed last year in November." [comments apply to Bosnia, not R
Srpska] (ILGA correspondent - 1 April 99)". A quite surprising statement to many
of us who are following the European gay and lesbian legislation closely. As we
all have Bosnia listed as a country that outlaws gay sex.

I am therefore very pleased to be able to confirm that the Federation of
Bosnia-Herzegovina did in fact decriminalise in 1998. According to the Swedish
Embassy in Sarajevo (fax 9 June 1999) a new penal code was introduced in the
Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina on 28 November 1998. The new penal code has no
reference to homosexuality, and it is accordingly no longer a criminal offence
in the Federation.

In Republika Srpska a new penal code is still being worked on. It is expected to
be introduced later this summer. Until then, the old Yugoslavian legislation
which outlaws homosexuality is still into force (the 1998 embassy report did
state that homosexuality is not a criminal offence in Republika Srpska).


SEXUAL OFFENCE AND AGE OF CONSENT IN LATVIA
By Juris Ludvigs Lavrikovs,
Homosexuality Information Centre, Riga, Latvia

In Euroletter 62 information was given regarding the new Criminal Law in Latvia
which was adopted by the Saeima (Latvian Parliament) in July 1998. One of the
provisions of the law enacting the new Criminal Law was that the date of entry
into force of the Law would be laid down in a separate law. On 15 October 1998
the corresponding law "On the Time and Order of Entry into Force of the Criminal
Law" was adopted and the date of entry into force was set - 1 April 1999.

In the same issue of the Euroletter it was stated that Article 161 of the
Criminal Law "Sexual acts with a person who has not reached the age of 16"
establishes 16 years as the minimum allowed age for all consenting sexual acts.
Recent study of the Criminal Law as well as academic literature and commentaries
by legal scholars, however, reveal new facts, and further explanations regarding
the age of consent in Latvia are needed.

Vaginal intercourse between persons of opposite sexes
Article 161 "Sexual acts with a person who has not reached the age of 16"
provides that "sexual acts with a person who has not reached the age of 16,
where the latter is in material or other dependence on the person
committing the sexual act, or where such act is committed by a person of full
age,- shall be punished by imprisonment for up to 4 years".

'Sexual act' is understood solely as vaginal intercourse between man and woman.
The Latvian legislator regard as 'natural' only such intercourse and therefore
other forms of sexual acts such as gay and lesbian sex, or anal and oral
intercourse between persons of opposite sexes do not fall under the term 'sexual
act'.

According to Article 11 of the Criminal Law "Age at which criminal
accountability starts" only persons who have reached the age of 14 can be called
to criminal accountability. Article 161 makes a sexual act a criminal offence
where there is material or other dependence of a person who has not reached the
age of 16 on the person committing sexual act or where the act is committed by a
person of full age (in Latvia from the age of 18). Therefore the Law establishes
two different minimum allowed ages (14 and 16 years depending on the situation)
for vaginal intercourse between persons of opposite sexes. Accordingly, if a 14
to 17 years old person engages in consenting vaginal intercourse with 14 to 15
years old person and there is no form of dependence between them, formally there
is no offence. If a person of 18 or more years engages in the same intercourse,
that person is punishable under Article 161. The limit of 14 years comes from
Article 159 "Rape", which provides that committing a sexual act taking advantage
of a person's helpless state is equal to rape.

According to Decision No 6 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia of 19
October 1992 "On Court practice in the application of laws which define criminal
responsibility for sexual offences", a state of helplessness considered to exist
"where a person, because of her/his physical or psychological state, could not 
understand the character and the meaning of the action committed with that
person". As an example of such a physical or psychological state is cited the
fact of a person being a minor. Article 11 of the Criminal Law defines a person
younger than 14 a minor.

For the same reason of 'naturalness', the legislator separate the rape of a
woman by a man from all other forms of violent sexual acts. Thus Article 159
"Rape" is understood exclusively as forced vaginal intercourse between man and
woman where the man is the one who exerts the force. Article 159 reads:

(1) Sexual acts committed with violence, threats or taking advantage of a
person's helpless state (rape),-
unished by imprisonment for up to 7 years, with or without police monitoring for
up to 3 years.
(2) Rape committed by a person who has previously committed rape, or committed
by a group of persons, or rape of a persons who has not reached full age,-
punished by imprisonment for 5 to 15 years, with or without police monitoring
for up to 3 years.
(3) Rape which causes serious damage or rape of minor,- punished by life
imprisonment or imprisonment for 10 to 20 years, with or without police
monitoring for up to 3 years.

Lesbian and gay sex, and non-vaginal sex between persons of opposite sexes
All other sexual acts such as lesbian and gay sex, anal, oral and all other
imaginable sexual acts between persons of opposite sexes (these are "actions
which imitate sexual intercourse such as oral and anal sex, insertion of a hand
into woman's vagina, the touching of a woman's sexual organs or other parts of
her body by  his penis") which are referred to by legislators as "unnatural"
sexual gratification are covered, where violence is involved, by Article 160 of
the Criminal Law "Violent sexual gratification".  The Article reads as follow:

(1) Sodomy or lesbianism or other forms of unnatural sexual gratification, if
such acts are committed with violence, or threats or taking advantage of a
person's helpless state,- punished by imprisonment for up to 6 years or arrest.
(2) The same acts, if they are committed with a person not of full age or
repeatedly or if such acts are committed by a person who has previously
committed rape, or if they are committed by a group of persons,- punished by
imprisonment for 3 to 12 years.
(3) Violent sexual gratification which causes serious damage or is committed
with minor,- punished by life imprisonment or imprisonment for 10 to 20 years
with or without police monitoring for up to 3 years.

It was explained above that according to Latvian law a person is regarded as a
minor if she/he is younger than 14. A persons is regarded as not of full age if
she/he is between 14 and 18.

Despite the fact that Article 160 deals primarily with the violent sexual
intercourse it is possible to identify a minimum allowed age for consenting
sexual acts between persons of the same sex and for non-vaginal sexual acts
between persons of opposite sexes. Thus similarly to Article 159 "Rape",Article
160 punishes such sexual acts which are committed with a person taking advantage
of that person's helpless state. Therefore consenting lesbian and gay sex as
well as sexual acts other than vaginal intercourse between persons of opposite
sexes committed with a person younger than 14 years of age constitute a
punishable violent sexual gratification under
Article 160.

Article 160 does not contain any provision similar to those of Article 161
regarding dependence and full age on the part of the person committing the
sexual act. Consequently no criminal offence is committed when two persons of
the same sex or persons of opposite sexes engage in sexual act other than
vaginal intercourse and one of them is 18 years of age or older and the other is
14 or 15 years old.

The conclusion to be drawn regarding the minimum allowed age for consenting
sexual activities is complex: consenting lesbian and gay sex as well as sex
between persons of opposite sexes which does not involve vaginal intercourse is
legal from the age of 14, but vaginal intercourse between persons of opposite
sexes is legal from the age of either 14 or 16, depending on the age of the
other person and the dependence situation
between them.

Other sexual offences
A further Article of the Latvian Criminal Law, Article 162 "Enticement to
depravity" does not distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals and
punishes the commission of a depraved act with a person not of full age against
the will of that person (162(1)) and commission of a depraved act with minor
(162(2)). As some legal  commentators on the Criminal Law make clear, depravity
can be mental as well as physical.  Mental depravity is described as "cynical
conversation on sexual issues with the victims or in their presence, the showing
of materials of a pornographic nature, instruction regarding unnatural sexual
gratification etc.". Physical depravity is understood to be "the revealing and
demonstration of sexual organs in front of the victims, the revealing or
touching of the victims' sexual organs or other activities involving the
touching of the victims' bodies". Other commentators give such examples of
depravity as "various bodily movements, conversations, and other activities
which cause sexual arousal, unhealthy interest or a perverted idea of sexual
life. Accordingly depraved activity includes the performance of sexual acts in
front of a person, telling stories about sexual gratification etc.".


FINLAND TO ALLOW GAYS TO REGISTER MARRIAGE
Reuters, June 3, 1999

  HELSINKI, Finland - Finnish Justice Minister Johannes Koskinen said on Thursday
he backed a proposal to allow homosexual couples to register their unions in the
same way as married heterosexuals, paving the way for a change in the law.

If the Justice Ministry's proposal is accepted, Finland will join the other
Nordic countries in having laws allowing homosexuals and lesbians to register
their relationships and grant them almost the same rights as married
couples.

"In principle, I am for making the relationships official, but the possible
legal consequences must be studied," Koskinen told Reuters.

The proposal includes equal rights of inheritance, entitlement to survivors'
pensions, social benefits and tax relief for couples.

The Justice Ministry committee said homosexual couples should also be allowed to
separate with the same legal rights as divorcing heterosexuals.

But homosexual couples would not gain the right to adopt children, a restriction
the Finnish Lesbian and Gay Association SETA has criticised.

"We approve the other parts of the proposal, but it leaves the child's position
unresolved," SETA secretary-general Rainer Hiltunen said.

Koskinen said he did not expect the parliament to debate the proposal until next
year.

SETA said 100 to 200 Finnish homosexual couples want to register their marriages
annually.


SPANISH CITY COUNCIL MAY HAVE VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
by César Lestón, Fundación Triángulo

The city of Alcobendas, pop. 60000, in the outskirts of Madrid has been storing
data wich violated the right to privacy of the citizens. Metro police -under the
supervision of the city council- kept records as to the age, personal
appearance, health, race and sexual life of the individuals arrested and/or
identified in police controls. When this was disclosed, barely a month ago, the
Triangle Foundation filed a complaint to the Protection Data Agency, a
government department who provides for the privacy of the citizens to be
safeguarded particularly in what regards storing in computer records.

This department has now disclosed a procedure has started which might lead to
the city council of Alcobendas being heavily fined for it. The Protection Data
Agency has already found as many as 416 police records contaning details of
sexual life and health records of individuals.

While a final ruling is made, and given the very serious nature of the fault,
the Protection Data Agency has warned very seriously the city council of
Alcobendas against the use of such private data.

Miguel Ángel Sánchez, president of the Fundación Triángulo for the Social
Equality of Gays and Lesbians, says: "We are glad of the reaction of the
government agency. Sexual life or health are private matters who should never be
kept in police records".


DUTCH CABINET INTRODUCES BILLS ALLOWING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND SAME-SEX ADOPTION
by Kees Waaldijk (Faculty of Law, Universiteit Leiden, NL)

On 25 June 1999 (i.e. on the eve of "Roze Zaterdag", the Dutch name for the Gay
and Lesbian Pride Day) the Dutch Cabinet finally approved the introduction of
bills to open up marriage and adoption to same-sex partners. The bills will be
formally introduced in Parliament on 29 or 30 June, and only then the texts will
become public. Normally it would take both chambers of Parliament at least till
the end of the year 2000 to debate and approve these bills. So the first
same-sex marriages and adoptions would not take place before 2001. The
Netherlands might then still be the first country in the world with full
marriage rights for gays and lesbians. Same-sex adoption is already possible in
Denmark, in several states in the USA and in several provinces of Canada.

The Marriage Bill does not seek to do away with registered partnership (possible
since January 1998, for both same-sex and different-sex couples). For at least
five years marriage and registered partnership will exist alongside each other.
Registered partners will get the opportunity to convert their partnership into
full marriage.

There will hardly be any differences between the  legal consequences of a
same-sex marriage and those of a traditional different-sex marriage. The only
exception will be that if a child is born to a woman in a lesbian marriage, her
female spouse will not be presumed to be the "father" of the child. However,
through adoption she will be able to become the second legal parent of the
child.

The rules of adoption will also be almost identical for same-sex and
different-sex couples. The only exception will be that same-sex couples will not
be allowed to adopt a foreign child.

For further background information see my updates on the lengthy process leading
up to these bills on: www.coc.nl/index.html?file=marriage

Once I have seen the text of the bills and the explanatory memoranda, I will
circulate more detailed information.




------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/euroletter
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

DENMARK: GAY MAN GOT COMPENSATED FOR ILLEGAL SACKING
By Bjørn Skolander

For the first time in Denmark a employer has agreed to financially compensate an
employee, who had been sacked on grounds of his homosexuality. Denmark has had a
law against discrimination on the labour-market since 1996, including
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. But due to difficulties to
prove discrimination no cases have previously been tested.

22 year old Frank Wolff Hinrichs from southern Denmark did, however, hide a tape
recorder in his pocket, when he was called for a discussion with his employer.
And from the tape recording it was evident that he had been sacked because he
was gay.

The case has created optimism within the Landsforeningen for Bösser og
Lesbiske/The Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians (LBL), as they
believe that many lesbians and gay men do experience discrimination at their
jobs, in connection with job interviews etc. The association is therefore in
favour of an investigation of the extent of the labour-market's discrimination
of homosexuals. LBL is referring to a Swedish study from 1997. It showed that a
third of the participants felt discriminated against due to their sexual
orientation. And that 50% did not dare to be open about their orientation out of
fear of negative reactions.

The Danish minister responsible for labour-market issues, Ove Hygum, has made it
clear that he is ready to make funds available for an investigation, if the
unions and the employers' association also contributes financially. The unions
are positive to an investigation, but have not yet decided if they will support
it financially. The employers' association, on the other hand, does not agree
that there is a need for such an investigation. And they demand that LBL can
prove that their exist a real need for an investigation of labour-market
discrimination against lesbians and gay men. And it is not enough to come with
2-3 cases, the association says.

However, one of the unions is of the opinion that the current law concerning
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation has to be changed. According
to the union, it should be the employer who should prove that a dismissal etc.
has not happened due to a employee's sexual orientation. And not as now is the
case, the employee who must prove that she or he has been discriminated against.
Such a law would be similar to discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy. If
the present law is not changed we are forced to recommend our members to hide a
tape recorder in their pockets when they go a job interview etc, says a
spokesman for the union.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/euroletter
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

EURO-LETTER

No. 70 							 May 1999

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European Region of
the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and Lesbian International
Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National Association for Gays and
Lesbians. Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen
and Soeren Baatrup.  Contact to Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@... URL:
http://www.steff.suite.dk Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033
0840 Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V,
Denmark  You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to 
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters are
available on the Internet at  http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html


IN THIS ISSUE
- ADOPTION RIGHTS TO DANISH GAY OR LESBIAN COUPLES - PARTNERSHIP LAW CHANGED
- URGENT ACTION - LESBIAN/GAY ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS URGED TO LOBBY THEIR
GOVERNMENTS
- PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL: BROADENING ARTICLE 14 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION
ON HUMAN RIGHTS
- DENMARK: GAY MAN GOT COMPENSATED FOR ILLEGAL SACKING
- SPANISH PARLIAMENT CALLS FOR TRANSEXUAL SURGERY COSTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
SOCIAL SECURITY

Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in Europe
can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm
A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding same-sex partners can
be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm


ADOPTION RIGHTS TO DANISH GAY OR LESBIAN COUPLES - PARTNERSHIP LAW CHANGED
By Steffen Jensen

The Danish law on registered partnership has been changed by the Parliament
nearly exactly 10 years after the same Parliament passed the first law in the
world to recognise gay and lesbian couples.

The amendments to the law are further steps towards total equality between
hetero- and homosexual couples.

The changes are:

Citizens from Norway, Sweden and Iceland have the same rights as Danish citizens
in relation to registered partnership.
Citizens of other countries having similar legislation as the partneship law can
get the same rights.
Two non-Danish citizens can enter into registered partnership if both partners
have stayed in Denmark for at least two years.
A partner in a registered partnership can adopt the children of her/his partner
unless the child is adopted from a foreign country.

The remaining differencies between marriage and registered partnership are:

no insemination by public health services for lesbians
no adoption of foreign children
no possibility of church wedding, but blessings are possible
the two-years limit for foreigners

The Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians (LBL) has lobbied for
total equality between marriage and registered partnership since the law was
passed in 1989. Bent Hansen, president of LBL, said after the Parliament had
passed the changes to the law:

"We welcome and celebrate this step towards total equality between the
heterosexuals and us. Especially the possibility of adoption of stepchildren is
an important signal recognising the fact that gay and lesbian couples do have
children - we have known that for a very long time - now the politicians also
have realised that."

"But in celebrating this victory we must not forget that we have not yet reached
full equality", Bent Hansen added. "The next step must be abolition of the
stupid law forbidding public health services to assist lesbians in artificial
insemination. The politicians have realised that we have children, now we must
convince them that we should also be allowed to get children!"

The new law will come into force 1. July 1999.


URGENT ACTION - LESBIAN/GAY ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS URGED TO LOBBY THEIR
GOVERNMENTS
By Nigel Warner

Overview

ILGA Europe is calling on the Council of Europe to provide express protection
for lesbians and gays in the European Convention on Human Rights, through the
inclusion of the words "sexual orientation" in the Convention's
anti-discrimination article. If achieved, this would be of immense importance
for lesbians and gays in the 41 member states of the Council of Europe, both
strengthening protection in individual cases, and constituting a major symbolic
statement by the governments of Europe condemning discrimination against
lesbians and gays.
ILGA-Europe's submission

In a submission to the Secretary-General of the Council, ILGA Europe argues that
the existing wording of the Convention is insufficient. Since the Convention's
anti-discrimination article (Article 14), which lists the prohibited grounds of
discrimination, makes no reference to sexual orientation, lesbians and gays are
forced to rely on other grounds such as "sex" or "other status".  These fail to
recognise the specific phenomenon of sexual orientation, and the fact that
historically it has been, and continues to be, the basis of severe and
widespread discrimination in Europe.

ILGA Europe's submission points out that lesbians and gay men have been, and
continue to be, killed, tortured, imprisoned and denied jobs or services because
of their sexual orientation, and cites April's bombing of a gay pub in London as
a recent example. It argues that only express inclusion of the ground "sexual
orientation" can provide specific, symbolic condemnation of this historic and
ongoing form of discrimination, and the hatred, fear and ignorance that lie
behind it.

Background to the submission (For background information on the Council or
Europe, see the end of this message)
In 1998 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe instructed its human
rights experts to propose a strengthening of Article 14 by the end of 1999. 
This reflected their concern that the protection provided by that article
against discrimination on the grounds of sex and race was inadequate.

Additions to the rights in the European Convention occur very infrequently. 
Indeed, there have been no changes to Article 14 in the nearly 50 year life of
the Convention. The revision of Article 14 requested by the Committee of
Ministers presents an opportunity to argue for the incorporation of  "sexual
orientation" in the Convention which may well not be repeated for decades.

ILGA-Europe's appeal for action

ILGA EUROPE THEREFORE APPEALS TO LESBIAN AND GAY ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
ACROSS EUROPE TO JOIN IN DEMANDING THAT "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" BE INCLUDED AS A
PROHIBITED GROUND IN ARTICLE 14.
The governments of Europe alone can make this change, acting through the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This Committee consists of the
Foreign Ministers of the 41 member states. They are more likely to be influenced
by lobbying at the national level than by an international NGO such as
ILGA-Europe. Organisations and individuals are therefore urged to write to their
Foreign Minister supporting ILGA-Europe's proposal.  A suggested letter (for
translation into your own language) is set out below. Please send it with a copy
of the ILGA-Europe submission (see the text below, it can also be found at 
http://www.steff.suite.dk/art14.htm).

Draft letter:

Dear [foreign minister]
Proposal for the inclusion of "sexual orientation" as a prohibited ground of
discrimination in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights

I/we are writing to you in your capacity as a member of the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe.

I/we understand that the Council of Europe is currently considering the
broadening of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. ILGA Europe
(the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association) has made
a submission to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe arguing that this
opportunity should be taken to incorporate the term "sexual orientation" in the
list of prohibited grounds in Article 14.  I/we are writing in support of this
submission, a copy of which is attached for your information.

The current text of Article 14, adopted in 1950, includes grounds covering most
of the groups persecuted by the Nazi regime in Germany from 1933 to 1945. But
lesbians and gays, who were also persecuted by the Nazis, are not clearly
protected by any of the grounds in the current Article 14. These grounds do not
recognise the specific phenomenon of sexual orientation, despite the fact that
historically it has been, and continues to be, the basis of severe and
widespread discrimination in Europe. Lesbians and gay men have been, and
continue to be, killed, tortured, imprisoned and denied jobs or services because
of their sexual orientation.  I/We would draw your attention to a recent and
particularly horrifying example - the bombing of a gay pub in London on 30 April
1999, in which three people died and at least sixty were injured.

As the submission points out, recent years have seen increasing recognition in
national and international law that sexual orientation discrimination is as
serious as discrimination based on sex, race and religion.  Prohibition of
sexual orientation discrimination is now included in many national laws.

Moreover, in 1997, under the Treaty of Amsterdam the member states of the
European Union authorised the European Community to take action to combat
discrimination on a number of grounds, including sexual orientation.

I/We urge you most strongly to use your influence at the Committee of Ministers
to ensure that the broadened version of Article 14 includes sexual orientation
as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Such a change is essential to help
counter the severe and widespread discrimination faced by lesbians and gays in
many parts of Europe today.
*********
Please ask other organisations in your country to write to the Foreign Minister
also, for example, human rights organisations, trades unions, and political
parties.

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. TIME IS VERY SHORT FOR THIS
PROPOSAL TO BE CONSIDERED.

Background Information on the Council of Europe
The Council of Europe is the continent's most important human rights
organisation, with some 41 member states subscribing to its human rights
standards.  It was set up after the Second World War with the purpose of trying
to ensure that the human rights atrocities of the 1930's and 1940's were never
repeated again in Europe.

It "owns" the European Convention on Human Rights and is the seat of the
European Court of Human Rights.  It is governed by the Foreign Ministers of its
member states (who together form its "Committee of Ministers") and by
representatives from their parliaments (who make up its "Parliamentary
Assembly").
It is of course quite distinct from the European Union.


PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL
BROADENING ARTICLE 14 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS:
THE NEED FOR EXPRESS INCLUSION OF "SEXUAL ORIENTATION"
Submission of ILGA-Europe, the European Region of the International Lesbian and
Gay Association, to the Steering Committee on Human Rights,  Council of Europe
13 May 1999

I. SEXUAL ORIENTATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS AN EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED GROUND OF
DISCRIMINATION IN THE NEW ARTICLE 14

ILGA-Europe respectfully submits that, whatever the final form of the new
Article 14, and whatever new grounds besides sexual orientation are added to the
new Article 14, sexual orientation should be included. The European Convention
on Human Rights, and the Court and Commission established to enforce it, were
motivated by a fervent desire among the member states of the Council of Europe
never again to repeat the horrific human rights violations of the Second World
War. The current text of Article 14, adopted in 1950, includes grounds covering
most of the groups persecuted by the Nazi regime in Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Jews, Gypsies and Communists, for example, are protected by such grounds as
"race", "colour", "religion", "political or other opinion", "national origin",
and "association with a national minority". But the minority of homosexual men
and women in Europe, who were also a group targeted for persecution by the
Nazis, are not clearly protected by any of the grounds in the current Article
14. Although sexual orientation arguably comes within "sex" or "other status",
protection through the application of these grounds is not sufficient. These
grounds do not recognise the specific phenomenon of sexual orientation, and the
fact that it has historically been, and continues to be, the basis of severe and
widespread discrimination in Europe. Lesbians and gay men have been, and
continue to be, killed, assaulted, imprisoned and denied jobs or services
because of their sexual orientation, whether by agents of the state or private
individuals. Only express inclusion of the ground "sexual orientation" in the
new Article 14 can provide specific, symbolic condemnation of this historic and
ongoing form of discrimination, and the hatred, fear and ignorance that lie
behind it.

A. APPLICATION OF "SEX" OR "OTHER STATUS" IS NOT SUFFICIENT
The application of the current Article 14 to questions of sexual orientation
discrimination is uncertain, because the European Court of Human Rights has
considered only three cases of sexual orientation discrimination, and in all
three found it unnecessary to consider Article 14. The Court instead held that
blanket prohibitions of all private, consensual sexual activity between adult
men (and implicitly also between adult women), which formed the legal basis for
Nazi persecution of homosexual men, violate the right to respect for private
life in Article 8 of the Convention. Because the interference with private life
through a threat of imprisonment was so severe, the Court did not need to
consider the discrimination inherent in the fact that private, consensual sexual
activity was legal in each case between a man and a woman or two women.

From 1955 to 1996, the European Commission of Human Rights applied Article 14 in
over 20 cases of sexual orientation discrimination and found no violation.
However, in its Report in Sutherland v. United Kingdom, adopted on 1 July 1997,
the European Commission of Human Rights for the first time found a violation of
Article 14, combined with Article 8, in a case involving sexual orientation
discrimination. It held that the age of consent to male-male sexual activity in
United Kingdom criminal law, which is 18 rather than 16 (17 in Northern Ireland)
for male-female or female-female sexual activity, violated the Convention. The
Commission observed (at para. 50) that "[t]he different minimum ages for lawful
sexual relations between homosexuals and heterosexuals are a difference based on
sexual orientation. In terms of Article 14 ..., it is not clear whether this
difference is a difference based on 'sex' or on 'other status'. ... The
Commission ... considers that it is not required to determine whether a
difference based on sexual orientation is a matter which is properly to be
considered as a difference on grounds of 'sex' or of 'other status'. In either
event, it is a difference in respect of which the Commission is entitled to seek
justification." The Commission then examined the justifications advanced by the
United Kingdom Government and concluded (at para. 66) "that no objective and
reasonable justification exists for the maintenance of a higher minimum age of
consent to male homosexual, than to heterosexual, acts and that [Euan
Sutherland's] application discloses discriminatory treatment in the exercise of
the applicant's right to respect for private life under Article 8".

Pursuant to an agreement between the applicant and the United Kingdom
Government, the Sutherland case has been suspended, to permit the Government to
attempt to amend the offending legislation, and thus has not yet been heard by
the Court. This means that the Court has not had an opportunity to accept or
reject the Commission's reasoning in Sutherland. However, the Court has recently
declared admissible, under the new Protocol No. 11 procedures, three cases in
which the applicants complain of sexual orientation discrimination violating
Articles 8 and 14. In the case of Smith and Grady v. U.K., and Lustig-Prean and
Beckett v. U.K., which the Court will hear on 18 May 1999, a lesbian and three
gay men are challenging the United Kingdom Government's policy of dismissing all
lesbian, gay and bisexual members of the armed forces, because of their sexual
orientation and without regard to their performance in their jobs. In Salgueiro
da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, a gay father is challenging an appellate court's
citing his sexual orientation against him in reversing a trial court's decision
to grant him parental authority over his daughter. And in A.D.T v. United
Kingdom, a gay man is challenging his conviction for engaging in consensual,
non-sado-masochistic, sexual activity with four other adult men in the privacy
of his own home, where comparable male-female or female-female sexual activity
would have been legal.

The Court could find it unnecessary to consider the Article 14 issues in these
three cases. However, if the Court chooses to address Article 14, it will have
the opportunity to decide whether a distinction based on sexual orientation is a
distinction based on "sex" or on "other status". If the Court were to hold that
distinctions based on sexual orientation are distinctions based on "sex", this
would have the advantage of bringing sexual orientation discrimination within
the Court's case law on sex distinctions (which can only be justified by "very
weighty reasons"). It would also recognise that distinctions based on sexual
orientation ultimately involve telling men and women that their sex determines
what choices they may make with regard to their emotional and sexual
relationships with other persons. However, it is now doubtful whether the
European Court of Human Rights would reach such a conclusion, in view of a
recent judgment of the European Court of Justice. In Grant v. South-West Trains
(1998), the Court of Justice held that a distinction based on sexual orientation
did not also involve sex discrimination. The European Court of Human Rights is
likely to agree with the Court of Justice, and to hold that distinctions based
on sexual orientation can only be on the ground of "other status".

Including sexual orientation within the scope of "other status" does not provide
sufficient protection, because it is clear from the case law of the European
Court of Human Rights that "other status" can include any conceivable ground of
distinction between persons. The Court has held that Article 14 "prohibits ...
discriminatory treatment having as its basis or reason a personal characteristic
('status') by which persons or groups of persons are distinguishable from each
other". Putting sexual orientation under "other status" lumps it with many
distinctions that might be relatively trivial or generally justifiable or
infrequently used. For example, in Larkos v. Cyprus (18 Feb. 1999), the Court
found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 ("respect for
home") where legislation made a distinction between tenants in government-owned
dwellings and tenants in privately-owned dwellings. It would be hard to argue
that "tenants in government-owned dwellings" as a group face widespread
discrimination, for that sole reason, throughout Europe. Relegating sexual
orientation to the residual category of "other status" in the new Article 14
would fail to recognise that sexual orientation is, like sex, race and religion,
a very sensitive ground of distinction, and that discrimination based on sexual
orientation has been historically, and continues to be, one of the more serious
kinds of discrimination in Europe. Specific, symbolic condemnation of this kind
of discrimination requires the express inclusion of sexual orientation in the
new Article 14.

B. THE GROWING NUMBER OF PRECEDENTS IN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW JUSTIFIES
EXPRESS INCLUSION OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Since the 1970s, national anti-discrimination legislation and bills of rights in
national constitutions, within and outside Europe, have y or indirectly against
anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital
status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability,
religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth."

South Africa is a country in which the majority of people have long and bitter
experience of racial discrimination. Those who adopted the transitional and
final Constitutions recognised the similarity between discrimination based on
race and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In 1998, Ecuador became the second country to add sexual orientation to the
non-discrimination provision of its national constitution. In Ireland, a review
of the Constitution has recommended an amendment to Article 40.1, adding a list
of prohibited grounds, including sexual orientation. And at least five states in
federal countries have added sexual orientation to the non-discrimination
articles of their constitutions: two Brazilian states (Mato Grosso and Sergipe)
in 1989, and three German states (Brandenburg, Thuringia and Berlin) in 1992,
1993 and 1995.
Developments in national law have now been refected at the international level.
In Toonen v. Australia (1994), the United Nations Human Rights Committee
observed, in finding that a blanket prohibition of all private, consensual
sexual activity between adult men violated Article 17 ("privacy") of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that "the reference to
'sex' in Articles [2(1)] and 26 is to be taken as including sexual orientation".
And in Laskey v. United Kingdom (1997), the European Court of Human Rights
stated that "[t]here can be no doubt that sexual orientation and activity
concern an intimate aspect of private life".

Perhaps the most compelling evidence of this international trend was the
decision of the 15 member states of the European Union to sign the Treaty of
Amsterdam on 2 October 1997, which inserted (from 1 May 1999) the following new
Article 13 into the European Community Treaty:

"Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the limits
of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting
unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European
Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex,
racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
orientation."

In drafting a new Article 14, the Council of Europe must look to evidence of
international consensus as to what grounds should appear in a list of prohibited
grounds of discrimination in an international treaty, a national constitution,
or national legislation. In 1950, when the Convention was adopted, there was
certainly no international consensus that sexual orientation should be treated
like sex, race or religion. In 1982, when the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms was adopted, it was still too early to say that there was such an
international consensus. The fact that only Norway (in 1981) had adopted
legislation prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination at the national level
(as opposed to the state, provincial, city or county level), and only Québec (in
1977) had done so among the 10 provinces within Canada, probably explains why
sexual orientation was not mentioned in the non-discrimination provision of the
Canadian Charter (Section 15(1)) in 1982. If Canada were to amend Section 15(1)
today, nearly two decades later, sexual orientation would almost certainly be
included, as it was in South Africa in 1993 and 1996. Indeed, the Supreme Court
of Canada held in Egan v. Canada (1995), that sexual orientation is an
"analogous ground" under Section 15(1), similar to sex, race and religion, and
that discrimination based on sexual orientation is implicitly prohibited by
Section 15(1).

It is important to note that the judicial addition of sexual orientation was
only necessary in Egan because the list of express grounds had been closed in
1982 and it was unlikely that Section 15(1) of the Charter would be amended so
soon after its adoption. When an existing list of grounds is reviewed, as should
be the case in connection with the new Article 14 (see Part II below), those
conducting the review should not rely on potential judicial addition of other
grounds, but should endeavour to determine which kinds of discrimination are
considered the most serious at the time of the review. In 1999, it is clear that
there is sufficient international consensus, particularly within Europe, that
sexual orientation is a ground similar to sex, race or religion, and that any
list of prohibited grounds of discrimination should include it.

C. EXPRESS INCLUSION WILL NOT PREVENT THE COURT FROM DETERMINING THE
JUSTIFIABILITY OF DISTINCTIONS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION ON A CASE-BY-CASE
BASIS
Including sexual orientation in Article 14 will not mean that the Court must
find that every distinction based on sexual orientation automatically violates
the Convention. The Court established in the Belgian Linguistic Case (1968) that
a difference in treatment on any ground, including grounds expressly mentioned,
may be permitted under Article 14, provided that the difference in treatment has
an objective and reasonable justification and is proportionate to a legitimate
aim. The Court will still be able to consider in each case whether, in light of
the consensus among Council of Europe member states regarding the particular
issue, and the resulting breadth of the margin of appreciation of the member
states, there is an objective and reasonable justification for the particular
distinction based on sexual orientation, which renders the distinction
non-discriminatory. For example, in Casado Coca v. Spain (1994), the Court
upheld a ban on advertising by lawyers under Article 10, observing that "[t]he
wide range of regulations and the different rates of change in the Council of
Europe's member states indicate the complexity of the issue. Because of their
direct, continuous contact with their members, the Bar authorities and the
country's courts are in a better position than an international court to
determine how, at a given time, the right balance can be struck between the
various interests involved ..." The same analysis applies in the context of
Article 14.

The Court has frequently held that the member states "enjoy a certain margin of
appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise
similar situations justify a different treatment in law. The scope of the margin
of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances ... one of the relevant
factors may be the existence or non-existence of common ground between the laws
of the Contracting States."

II. THE LIST OF GROUNDS IN ARTICLE 14 DOES NOT INCLUDE SERIOUS KINDS OF
DISCRIMINATION RECOGNISED IN EUROPE SINCE 1950 AND THEREFORE NEEDS TO BE REVISED
One argument that might be made against the inclusion of sexual orientation is
that the current list of 13 grounds is long enough, and is non-exhaustive. If
the original list of grounds, adopted in 1950, is opened up, there will be no
end to the additions that could be proposed. It is better to leave the addition
of new grounds to the European Court of Human Rights.

This argument must be rejected, because it assumes that the list of grounds of
discrimination the Convention can explicitly condemn, by including them in
Article 14, was frozen for all time in 1950. This is completely contrary to the
European Court of Human Rights' approach to interpreting the Convention, which
is to ensure that it grows with changing social conditions in Europe. The Court
has said that "the Convention is a living instrument which, ... must be
interpreted in the light of present-day conditions". When Article 14 is amended,
the Council of Europe will have a chance to continue the growth of the
Convention by bringing its text up to date, so that it better reflects the kinds
of discrimination deemed most serious in Europe in the year 2000, fifty years
after the original text of Article 14 was adopted. The current list of grounds
in Article 14 was taken directly from Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (1948), with only one addition ("association with a national
minority") to take account of conditions in Europe. The text of a new Article 14
can address the needs of European societies at the beginning of the 21st
century.


APPENDIX OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES,
NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONS, AND NATIONAL LEGISLATION EXPRESSLY MENTIONING "SEXUAL
ORIENTATION" (OR A SIMILAR GROUND)

1. INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
European Union
Treaty establishing the European Community, Rome, 25 March 1957, Article 13
(inserted as Article 6a by Article 2(7) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, 2 October 
1997, and renumbered as Article 13 by Article 12(1) and the Annex of the  Treaty
of Amsterdam) ("sexual orientation") (in force on 1 May 1999)

2. NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONS

Brazil
Mato Grosso - Constitution, 1989, Article 10.III ("orientação sexual")
Sergipe - Constitution, 1989, Article 3.II ("orientação sexual")

Ecuador - Constitution, 1998, Article 23(3) ("orientación sexual")

Germany
Berlin - Constitution, 1995, Article 10(2) ("sexuelle Identität")
Brandenburg - Constitution, 1992, Article 12(2) ("sexuelle Identität")
Thuringia - Constitution, 1993, Article 2(3) ("sexuelle Orientierung")

South Africa - Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, No. 200 of
1993, Section 8(2) (transitional Constitution) ("sexual orientation" )
- Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 8 May 1996 (as amended on
11 Oct. 1996), Sections 9(3), 9(4) (final Constitution) ("sexual orientation")

3. NATIONAL LEGISLATION

Australia
Australian Capital Territory - Discrimination Act 1991, No. 81, s. 7(1)(b) 
("sexuality")
New South Wales - Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, No. 48, as amended by Anti-
Discrimination (Amendment) Act 1982, No. 142, s. 5, Schedule 2, Anti-
Discrimination (Amendment) Act 1994, No. 28, s. 3, Schedule 4 ("homosexuality"
added in 1982)
Northern Territory - Anti-Discrimination Act 1992, No. 80, s. 19(1)(c)
("sexuality")
Queensland - Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, No. 85, s. 7(1)(l) ("lawful sexual
activity")
South Australia - Equal Opportunity Act, 1984, No. 95, ss. 5(1), 29(3), as
amended by  Equal Opportunity Amendment Act, 1989, No. 68, Schedule ("sexuality"
included in 1984)
Tasmania - Anti-Discrimination Act 1998, No. 46 ("sexual orientation" and
"lawful sexual activity")
Victoria - Equal Opportunity Act 1995, No. 42, s. 6(d) ("lawful sexual
activity")

Canada
Federal Level - Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, ss. 2, 3(1), as
amended by S.C. 1996, c. 14 ("sexual orientation")
British Columbia - Human Rights Act, S.B.C. 1984, c. 22, ss. 3-6, 8-9, as
amended by S.B.C. 1992, c. 43, ss. 2-7 ("sexual orientation")
Manitoba - Human Rights Code, S.M. 1987-88, c. 45, s. 9(2)(h) ("sexual
orientation")
New Brunswick - Human Rights Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. H-11, as amended by S.N.B.
1992, c. 30, ss. 1-8 ("sexual orientation")
Newfoundland - Human Rights Code, R.S.N. 1990, c. H-14, ss. 6-9, 12, as amended
by S.N. 1997, c. 18, s. 2 ("sexual orientation")
Nova Scotia - Human Rights Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 214, s. 5(1)(n), as amended by
S.N.S. 1991, c. 12, s. 1 ("sexual orientation")
Ontario - Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, ss. 1-3, 5-6 ("sexual
orientation" originally added by S.O. 1986, c. 64, s. 18)
Prince Edward Island - Human Rights Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. H-12, s. 1(1)(d),
as amended by S.P.E.I. 1998, c. 92, s.1 ("sexual orientation")
Québec - Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, R.S.Q. c. C-12, s. 10
("orientation sexuelle" originally added by S.Q. 1977, c. 6, s. 1)
Saskatchewan - Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1, ss. 9-19,
25, 47(1), as amended by S.S. 1993, c. 61, ss. 4-15, 18 ("sexual orientation")
Yukon Territory - Human Rights Act, S.Y.T. 1987, c. 3, ss. 6, 34 ("sexual
orientation")

Denmark - Law of 9 June 1971, nr. 289, as amended by Law of 3 June 1987, nr.
357; extended to private employment by Law of 12 June 1996, nr. 459 ("seksuelle
orientering" added in 1987)

Finland - Penal Code (as amended by Law 21.4.1995/578), c. 11, para. 9, c. 47,
para. 3 ("sukupuolinen suuntautuminen" or "sexual orientation")

France - Nouveau Code pénal, arts. 225-1, 225-2, 226-19, 432-7; Code du travail,
arts. L. 122-35, L. 122-45 (originally added by Loi No. 85-772, 25 July 1985,
Loi No. 86-76, 17 January 1986) ("moeurs" or "morals, manners, customs, ways")

Germany
Saxony-Anhalt - Gesetz zum Abbau von Benachteiligungen von Lesben und Schwulen
(Law on Reducing Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men), 22 Dec. 1997
(public sector only) ("sexuelle Identität")

Iceland - General Penal Code, No. 19/1940, s. 180, as amended by Act No.
135/1996, s. 1, and Act No. 82/1998, s. 91 ("sexual orientation" added in 1996)
Ireland - Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, No. 10, s. 6(2)(e), as amended by Unfair
Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993, No. 22, s. 5(a); extended to other aspects of
employment by Employment Equality Act, 1998, No. 21, s. 6(2)(d) ("sexual
orientation" added in 1993)

Israel - Equal Opportunities in Employment Act 1988, as amended by Book of Laws,
No. 1377 of 2 Jan. 1992 ("neti'ya minit" or "sexual orientation")

Luxembourg - Code pénal, arts. 454-457, added by Law of 19 July 1997
("orientation sexuelle" and "moeurs")

Namibia - Labour Act, 1992, No. 6, s. 107 ("sexual orientation")

Netherlands - Penal Code, arts. 137f, 429 quater (inserted by Law of 14 Nov.
1991, Staatsblad 1991, nr. 623); General Equal Treatment Act, arts. 1, 5-7 (Law
of 2 March 1994, Staatsblad 1994, nr. 230) ("hetero- of homoseksuele
gerichtheid" or "hetero- or homosexual orientation")

New Zealand - Human Rights Act 1993, No. 82, s. 21(1)(m); New Zealand Bill of 
Rights Act 1990, No. 109, s. 19, as amended by Human Rights Act 1993, No. 82,
ss. 21(1)(m), 145, Second Schedule ("sexual orientation")

Norway - Penal Code, para. 349a, Law of 8 May 1981, nr. 14 ("homofile legning,
leveform eller orientering" or "homosexual inclination, lifestyle or
orientation")

Slovenia - Penal Code (1 Jan. 1995), art. 141 ("spolni usmerjenosti" or "sexual
orientation")

South Africa - Labour Relations Act, 1995, No. 66, s. 187(1)(f) (dismissal);
extended to other aspects of employment by Employment Equity Act, 1998, No. 55,
s. 6 ("sexual orientation" added in 1995)

Spain - Penal Code, Organic Law of 23 Nov. 1995, No. 10/1995, arts. 314, 511-12
(see also arts. 22(4), 510, 515(5)) ("orientación sexual")

Sweden - Criminal Code, c. 16, para. 9, Law of 4 June 1987, SFS 1987:610
("homosexuell läggning" or "homosexual inclination"); extended to employment by
Law of 11 March 1999, SFS 1999:133 ("sexuell läggning" or "sexual inclination")

United States
California - Cal. Labor Code s. 1102.1 ("sexual orientation" added in 1992)
Connecticut - Conn. Gen. Stat. ss. 4a-60a, 45a-726a, 46a-81b to 46a-81r ("sexual
orientation" added in 1991)
District of Columbia - D.C. Code Ann. ss. 1-2501 to 1-2533 ("sexual orientation"
originally added in 1973)
Hawaii - Haw. Rev. Stat. ss. 378-1, 378-2 ("sexual orientation" added in 1991)
Massachusetts - Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 151B, ss. 3, 4 ("sexual orientation"
added  in 1989)
Minnesota - Minn. Stat. Ann. ss. 363.01(45), 363.03 ("sexual orientation" added
in  1993)
New Hampshire - N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. (e.g.) ss. 21:49, 354-A:7, 354-A:10,
354-A:17  ("sexual orientation" added in 1997)
New Jersey - N.J. Rev. Stat. ss. 10:5-5.hh.-kk., 10:5-12 ("affectional or sexual
orientation" added in 1991)
Rhode Island - R.I. Gen. Laws (e.g.) ss. 11-24-2 to 11-24-2.2, 28-5-2 to
28-5-7.3, 28-5-41, 34-37-1 to 34-37-5.4 ("sexual orientation" added in 1995)
Vermont - Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 1, s. 143; tit. 21, s.495 ("sexual orientation"
added in 1991)
Wisconsin - Wis. Stat. Ann. ss. 101.22, 111.31 to 111.36 ("sexual orientation"
added  in 1982)
Major U.S. cities with prohibitions of sexual orientation discrimination
extending to private sector employment include Baltimore, Boston, Chicago,
Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Kansas City, Los Angeles, al need for an
investigation of labour-market discrimination against lesbians and gay men. And
it is not enough to come with 2-3 cases, the association says.

However, one of the unions is of the opinion that the current law concerning
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation has to be changed. According
to the union, it should be the employer who should prove that a dismissal etc.
has not happened due to a employee's sexual orientation. And not as now is the
case, the employee who must prove that she or he has been discriminated against.
Such a law would be similar to discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy. If
the present law is not changed we are forced to recommend our members to hide a
tape recorder in their pockets when they go a job interview etc, says a
spokesman for the union.


SPANISH PARLIAMENT CALLS FOR TRANSEXUAL SURGERY COSTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
SOCIAL SECURITY
by Cesar Leston, Fundacion Triangulo

As you may recall (see Euroletter 68), a proposal was due to be voted in the
Spanish Parliament regarding the costs of transgender surgery. The proposal
called for our Social Security to take in charge the costs of such surgery.

When in 1995 the Spanish Minister of Health Ms Amador published the first list
of medical coverage at the expense of the social security, the transgender
surgery was excluded. Before such list was published though, transgender surgery
was seldom, if ever,  taken in charge by our National Health System. Identidad
de Genero (Gender Identity Association) has since then fought to have such
provision changed.

Significant last moves was Andalusia deciding to include reassignment surgery
within their own health system. Immediately after, a bill was introduced in
federal parliament calling on the National health system to undertake a similar
move.

Though initial prospects were pretty bleak, the lower house of parliament
eventually voted on April 15th to call on the National Health System to take in
charge the costs of gender reassignement surgery. The most remarkable feature
was the change in the attitude of the ruling party, PP, who initially was
against the move. Nevertheless, the vote actually had also the support of the PP
members of parliament, the bill having then been voted unanimously.

The effects of the bill are not immediate though: the bill is just a call, not a
law. Thus, the ministries concerned must know consider how to change the laws in
force in order to meet the requirement of the parliament. Nevertheless, given
the fact that it enjoyed the full support of government party MP's, it certainly
looks like the right measures will be implemented in a reasonable period of
time.

The bill also calls on the Ministry of Justice to have transexual persons
assigned, when arrested an imprisoned, to men or women prisons in according with
their "social sex" as opposed to their "legal one". That is, beyond the gender
stated in their ID's, what will prevail now is what those persons actually
are/want to be. It was about time for common sense to prevail.

The bill also wanted transexuals to be regarded as ellegible for political
asylum. I am sorry to say this proposal was defeated by only one vote.

According to the own statements of Ms Maria Jose Hernandez, member of the
transgender movement, she feels "happy but not satisfied" for she feels what has
been accomplished is just the beginning and that so much work still remains
ahead in order to attain full social integration.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/euroletter
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

For strange reasons it seems that two articles is missing in the middle of
EuroLetter 69. I send therefore those:



CZECH GOVERNMENT OKs PARTNER BILL
By Rex Wockner

The cabinet of the Czech Republic March 10 OK'd a gay-partnership bill drafted
by all the parties represented in the Chamber of Deputies except the Christian
Democrats.

The proposed legislation will permit same-sex couples to execute a contract
before a notary that will grant most of the property and social rights of
matrimony.

Other nations with gay-partnership laws that grant nearly every right of
marriage include Denmark (and Greenland), Hungary, Iceland, the Netherlands,
Norway and Sweden.


RECENT EVENTS IN BELGIUM
By Anke Hintjens and Remko van Kol

Government campaign
The Minister-for-equal-chances of the Flemish region in februari launched a
large scale publicity campaign aimed at parents of gay and lesbian youth. The
campaign's primary aim is to sensibilise parents to their responsability in
accepting their childrens disposition. Large posters displaying fathers and
sons, mother and daughter, are distributed to schools and other designated
places. The posters are accompanied by a leaflet, containing some answers to
frequently rising prejudices, and the address data of the most important support
centers and societies.

It is reported that this would be the first time in Europe for a government
minister to conduct a campaign aimed at parents' acceptance of their childrens
homosexual disposition. Anyway, the campaign shows a remarkable level of
political recognition of the specific problems that gay & lesbian adolescent can
get confrontated with.

Custody
The Belgian court of appeal recently rejected an earlier instance court-decision
that held the loss of custudy of Lili Huyberechts over her children. In her
divorce case, the judge had rejected her the right of custody because he overtly
doubted wether her new relation with another woman, and the sole fact of her
apparent disposition, could possibly fit the interests of her children. Failures
in the juridical procedure were the ground for the decision of the court of
appeal.

The judge who decided in the first instance divorce case, introduced by Lili
because she was been physically maltreated by her husband, got knowlegde of the
new relation and publicly doubted wether in would last for long. Without further
comment, the house, the furniture and the children got awarded to the husband.
Upon this, the woman started an appeal case, on which in spite of her formal
request hereto, no special urge-arrangements would be applied. 19 months after
the appeal had been lodged, the judge decided to award no changes to the
original court decision. He hereby expressed his doubts wether "the appealer's,
supposed, [sexual] disposition was as well her authentical and original
disposition". He furthermore drew attention to the possible negative effect of
the difference between the norms in society in general and those in the family
to be. Finally the judge alluded to the lifestyle of Lilis friend not being
suitable to be a good breeder of her own, and Lili's children.

This second stage decision has now been rejected by the court of appeal, for
procedure-errors; the decision had been made without the presence of a public
prosecutor for youth cases. Any case that directly involves the interests of
children necessarily demands the presence of such a prosecutor. The case has now
been sent trough to the Brussels court of instance, for a renewed treatment.

The technical ground for the divorce having been  insult', this being the
lesbian relationship, the husband meanwhile has been convicted to four months
jail for beating and wounding Lili and her friend.

Marriage: test case
On february 9th, the Antwerp Court of instance rejected the case of Priscilla, a
wedded transsexual, who had asked to let her birth-certificate be adjusted to
her acquired sex. This is an important decision for Belgian gay and lesbian
interests, because the fact that she insisted on letting her long existing
marriage with a female partner intact, was the central motive for the Courts
decision.

The court sees a divorce as the only unfullfilled condition to award the
requested juridical sex-change, although the Belgian law doesn't meet the case
in supplying a formal ground for a divorce.

Formerly, legal sex changes were granted to transsequals who applied for this.
The sole fact that a couple becomes a same sex couple, for the legislator
apparently changes the status of the relation in such a fundamental way, that
the prolongation of the official recognition of it becomes unthinkable. On the
occasion of this decision FWH again fiercely protested against this unfair
situation.

Several Flemish parties, among which the socialists, liberals and the greens,
have yet in the past declared to be in favour of opening up the civil marriage
to same sex couples. It is hoped that a consensus can be found before the coming
national elections, about a proposal on registrated partnership that can as well
find the support of the christian-democratics.

In the mean time, Priscilla and FWH still consider further proceedings on the
legal path, like the Belgian court of appeal, or the European Court for Human
Rights.




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/euroletter
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

EURO-LETTER

No. 69 		 April 1999

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European Region of
the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and Lesbian International
Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National Association for Gays and
Lesbians. Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen
and Soeren Baatrup.  Contact to Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@... URL:
http://www.steff.suite.dk Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033
0840 Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V,
Denmark  You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to 
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters are
available on the Internet at  http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html

****
IN THIS ISSUE
SWEDEN APPOINTS GAY OMBUDSMAN
SWEDEN MAY ALLOW FOREIGN GAY COUPLES TO REGISTER
SWEDISH GOVERNMENT BACKS EU COURT CASE
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BILL PASSED IN ARAGON
FRENCH SENATE DUMPS PARTNERS BILL
FRENCH ASSEMBLY APPROVES ANOTHER PARTNER BILL
UKRAINE GAY GROUP DENIED REGISTRATION
CZECH GOVERNMENT OKs PARTNER BILL
RECENT EVENTS IN BELGIUM
DEBATE IN SPAIN OVER POLICE FILES OF TIMES PAST
ILGA-EUROPE STATEMENT IN THE INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE 'FREEDOM, SECURITY,
JUSTICE: AN AGENDA FOR EUROPE' ON 24 MARCH
BRITISH COLONIES MUST LEGALIZE GAY SEX
CAYMANS WILL NOT LEGALIZE GAY SEX
BRITAIN TO WELCOME GAY ASYLUM SEEKERS
AUSTRIA: 11 MEN JAILED UNDER ANTI-GAY STATUTE
SEXUAL LAW REFORM IN LIECHTENSTEIN: DISCRIMINATION OF GAY MEN TO BE EXTENDED
LESBIANS
THE ANTILLES MAY NOT ACCEPT GAY/LESBIAN PARTNERSHIPS
YOUNG GAY MEN DENIED EQUALITY BY BRITISH HOUSE OF LORDS
NEW ILGA LEGAL SURVEY
****
Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in Europe
can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm
A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding same-sex partners can
be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm


SWEDEN APPOINTS GAY OMBUDSMAN
By RFSL

The Swedish Government in an extraordinary meeting today (26-03-1999) appointed
Hans Ytterberg Ombudsman against Discrimination on the Ground of Sexual
Orientation (Swedish abbreviation HomO). By that Hans Ytterberg becomes the
first HomO in the world.

Hans Ytterberg is a lawyer and has worked in Swedish courts, the Swedish
parliament, and currently holds a post in the Ministry of Justice. Mr. Ytterberg
was for several years president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian and Gay
Rights (Swedish abbreviation RFSL).

The new authority takes up its duties on 1 May 1999 when the law against
discrimination in the labour market on the ground of sexual orientation enters
into force. HomO will supervise the new law and bring alleged cases to court.
The Ombudsman will however not be limited to fight discrimination in the labour
market. Rather it might also deal with other important fields of life such as
education, tourism etc. 'Sexual orientation' is interpreted as homosexuality,
bisexuality and heterosexuality.

Deputy Minister of Industry Ms Mona Sahlin Comments:
- We know there exist discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If
Sweden is to grow as a nation we have to recognise the rights of everyone on the
labour market and in the rest of society. The Government's decision to appoint
an Ombudsman now is an indication that homosexuals and bisexuals are of the same
worth as heterosexuals and that society does not accept people being
discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.


SWEDEN MAY ALLOW FOREIGN GAY COUPLES TO REGISTER
By RFSL

Swedish Ministry of Justice today (19-03-1999) annonced a proposal on
improvement of the Registered Partnership Act. Non-Swedish same-sex couples are
suggested to have have the right to register their partnership. If parliament
approves the proposed law reform the new Registered Partnership Act can enter
into force on 1 March 2000.

To register a partnership today one of the parties have to be a Swedish citizen
AND domiciled in Sweden. Non-Swedish same-sex couples who have lived in Sweden
for a long time and perhaps have the intention to stay there for the rest of
their lives can therefore not become registered partners. Not even if they are
citizens of a state with a law on registered partnership.

The Ministry of Justice now proposes that persons who have lived in Sweden for
at least two years should have the possibility to register their partnership in
Sweden.

The Ministry of Justice also proposes that citizens from countries with
legislation similar to the Swedish Registered Partership Act should have the
same rights as Swedish citizens to register their partnership in Sweden. This
concerns Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands and Norway. This would mean that two
Danes can register their partnership in Sweden without the requirement of
domicile for two years.


SWEDISH GOVERNMENT BACKS EU COURT CASE
By RFSL

The Swedish Government decided in its weekly meeting on 25 March to appeal
against the Court of First Instance ruling in the Sven Englund case.

The Swedish Government is of the opinion that Community law does not stipulate
the notion of marriage. That notion is on the contrary defined in the national
legislation.

It is now for the Court to finally decide the matter.


DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BILL PASSED IN ARAGON
by Cesar Leston, Fundacion Triangulo

The Regional Parliament of Aragon passed on March the 12th their domestic
partnership bill.

This is the second such law in Spain after the one passed by Catalonia in June
last year.Spain is divided in 17 different regions, 2 of which only have very
specific provisions on civil law and who are thus able to implement such law.
Although some attempts have been made in other regions, they are unlikely to
reach a good end as in the case of Aragon and Catalonia for they lack the legal
competence to do so.

Still, the rights / duties regulated by such laws are rather limited. Catalan or
Aragonese civil law regulates basically the mutual obligations between private
persons and not between such individuals / partnerships and the governments. In
other words: for instance: while the law foresees the possibility of a "divorce
pension" in case the partnership splits, it does not (it can not actually)
provide regulation for "widowhood" pensions for such is up to  the central
governemnt to provide legislation for. Basically, rights granted by such law are
the same for straight and for same-sex couples, but the right of adoption,
same-sex couples not being ellegible for adopting.

Politically, the same scenario which took place in Catalonia has been reproduced
in Aragon but with even more dramatic changes: in Catalonia the regional-scope
party (CiU)holds all the position in government and is usually supported by the
ruling party at federal level, Popular Party (PP), christian-democrat. the bill
was supported by all parties in chamber and the abstention of the PP.

In Aragon, the bill was introduced by the socialist party. regional left-wing
nationalists (CHA) and communists wanted it to include adoption rights but
eventually the idea was dropped in order to attain a support the wider the
better to the bill.

The government of Aragon is a coalition between PP and PAR (a regional-scope
christian-democrat party) who seat together in Parliament. When the voting came,
the government coalition splitted: the PP voted against each of the articles of
the law, while everyone else in chamber (left-wing regionalists, socialists and
communists MP's) voted in favor of the bill. A funny thing is that the very
president of the regional party in office, Mr Gomez de las Roces, failed to
attend the vote for he did not want to vote in favor; nevertheless, the MP's of
his own party, who had been given freedom to vote what they wanted, voted all in
favor.

Once again, after Catalonia, the pure truth is that all parties, including
conservative-minded ones, vote in favor of domestic partnership bills. The party
in office at federal level, PP, has only managed to stop the advances of such a
law at a federal level by all kind of not-too-moral tricks failing thus to serve
the demands of society and that includes the demands of many of their own
voters. With the current allocation of seats at the federal  parliament, should
such a law be voted today, they would loose.

Please find hereinafter the full text of the domestic partnership bill, in
English

UNMARRIED COUPLES LAW IN ARAGON

Preamble to the Unmarried Couples Law

The Spanish society in general and the Aragon society in particular has been
demanding normative regulation of the so called unmarried couples for a long
time.

Since the first and only Congress about unmarried couples took place in 1982,
with auspice from the Europe Council, many European Union countries have been
adopting their respective legislation in one way or another to this phenomenon,
tending to equal, totally or partially, these couples to married couples.

In Spain, although there is some shy normative regulation in that respect, like
the new Urban Leasing Law, in the last years it is the justice tribunals and
especially the Constitutional Tribunal the ones who have been applying
conjectural or emergency solutions to the specific cases that arrive; solutions
that do not fully satisfy anyone.

Because it does not seem like it is Justice who must substitute the legislator
in this aspect, since it is the legislator who has been constitutionally
attributed the normative faculty and who must solve, through the viable
legislative treatment, the questions these types of situations bring up.

Also, next to the stable heterosexual couple, there is another similar
phenomenon, although of a very different nature and consequences, which is the
stable marital homosexual couple living together, now ceasing to be something
strange and marginal. The individual freedom principle that the Constitution
fundaments, and which has traditionally constituted the essence and base of
Aragon civil Right, forces the legislator to accept that every person has a
right to establish a relationship according to their own sexuality.

It is in both cases a growing phenomenon, generally accepted and assumed by
society, which legislative oppression only generates problems with tough
solutions, and causes important injustices: in some cases, for the members of
the couple; in others, and this is much graver, for the couple's progeny.

Not knowing the phenomenon from the legislative point of view implies worsening
these situations of injustice that today only the Justice Tribunals try to
solve.

Also, and even when the Spanish legislator tries to regulate the phenomenon from
a general point of view, given the singularities of the Aragon civil order, it
seems that the Aragon Courts still can't arrange the special treatment that
these types of relationships need to have in our Community. That is what in a
special way justifies this Law.


Articles of the Unmarried Couples Law

Article 1.- Area of application.
The present Law will be applied to non minors who, meeting the requisites and
formalities established in it, are part of a stable unmarried couple in which
there is a relationship of mutual affectivity.

Article 2.- Administrative registry.
Every stable unmarried couple must be inscribed in a Registry of the Aragon
General Depute for the administrative measures regulated by the present Law to
be applied, as well as noted or mentioned in the competent Civil Registry if the
state legislation foresaw it.

Article 3.- Existence of unmarried stable couple.
1.. It is considered a stable unmarried couple when the marital couple has lived
together for an uninterrupted period of two years, at least, or there is a
petition to constitute it through public writing.

2.. The credit of the existence of a stable unmarried couple and the course of
the two reference years, if there wasn't public writing, can be done through any
means of proof admitted in law, especially, through the notoriety act or
judiciary document that credits cohabitation.

Article 4.- Capacity requirements.
The following will not be allowed to constitute a stable unmarried couple of
those regulated in the present Law:

a) Those who are linked in matrimony.
b) The parents in straight line of descendancy or adoption.
c) The collateral from descendancy or adoption to the second degree.
d) Those who form a stable couple with another person.

Article 5.- Cohabitation regime and supplementary application norms.
1.. The cohabitation of the couple and the corresponding rights and obligations
can be regulated in its persona aspects and patrimonies through the convene
stated in the public writing, guided by the the liberty of pacts principle, as
long as they don't intrude in the rights or dignity of any of the receivers, and
are not contrary to the imperative norms applicable in Aragon.
2.. The temporal character or condition of a stable unmarried couple cannot be
agreed to.
3.. In case of a lack of agreement, the members of the stable couple will
contribute to the maintenance of the home and common spending with their
recourses, in proportion to their respective incomes and, if they are
insufficient, according to their patrimonies, without harming the capability of
keeping their property, administration and enjoying their own belongings.
Self-maintenance and that of common or not children that live with them,
including the right to food, education, medical/sanitary attention and home will
be considered common spending.
4.. Both members of the couple respond with solidarity to third persons to the
obligations acquired by the spending to which the previous number refers, if
social uses are made adequate; in any other case, only the person acquiring the
obligation would respond.

Article 6.- Causes of extinction.
1.. The stable unmarried couple extinguishes:
a) When one of the members dies.
b) Through mutual agreement.
c) Through unilateral decision.
d) In case of separation for more than a year.
e) In case of matrimony of one of its members.
1.. Any member of the stable couple can proceed, unilaterally, to its
revocation, notifying the other person.
2.. Both members of the couple are to cancel the public writing if it was
issued, whether separately or not.
3.. In case of an end of cohabitation, the parts can't formalize a stable
unmarried couple again through public writing until six months have passed since
the previous cohabitation public document was canceled.
4.. The extinction of the stable unmarried couple implies the revocation of the
powers that any of the members gave in favor of the other.

Article 7.- Patrimony effects of extinction in life.
1.. In case of extinction of the stable unmarried couple for a cause different
to death or declaration of death, and if the cohabitation has caused a situation
of patrimonial unfairness between both cohabitants that implies an unjust
enrichment, an economic compensation for the affected cohabitant can be required
in these cases:
a) When the cohabitant has contributed economically or with his/her work to the
acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the common or private goods
of the stable unmarried couple.
b) When the cohabitant, without retribution or with insufficient retribution,
has dedicated his/her time to the home, or the common children or the other
cohabitant, or has worked for him/her.
1.. At the time of the extinction of the cohabitation for the foreseen causes,
any one of the cohabitants can ask for a pension from the other, if it was
needed, in the supposed case that the care of the common children didn't allow
for the performance of work activities or made them seriously difficult. The
pension will extinguish when the care of the children ceases for any reason, or
when they become legal aged or emancipate.
1.. The reclamation by any of the members of the couple of the rights regulated
in the previous paragraphs must be formulated in the maximum time period of a
year counted from the time of extinction of the stable unmarried couple,
calculated in respect to the duration of the cohabitation.

Article 8.- Common progeny.
1.. In the case of rupture of the cohabitation with a cause different from death
or declaration of death, whatever the couple has accorded in terms of the
custody of the common progeny and visits, communication and visits regime is
what will be done. Either waym the judge can equally moderate what was agreed,
when in his/her judgement it is gravely harmful for any of the members or the
common progeny.
1.. In case of failure to agree, the judge can agree what he/she feels
appropriate in respect to the common progeny, in benefit of the children and
with their presence if they have enough judgement or are twelve years of age or
older.

Article 9.- Rights in case of death of one of the cohabitants.
In case of death of one of the members of the couple, the survivor will have the
right, whatever the content of the constitution writing, the testament or the
successor pacts, to the furniture, utensils and instruments of work that
constitute the habitual home, excluding only jewelry or artistic objects of
extraordinary value or those goods of family precedence.
Also, the survivor can, no matter what hereditary right he/she was issued,
reside freely in the habitual home for the time period of one year.

Article 10.- Adoption.
Unmarried heterosexual stable couples can adopt together.

Article 11.- Representation of the absent.
In case of judicial declaration of the absence of a member of the couple, and to
the effects of his/her representation and administration of patrimony, the other
will occupy the same position of the mate, in the terms foreseen in article 8 of
the Aragon Compilation of Civil Law.

Article 12.- Guardianship permission.
In the supposition that one of the members of the couple was declared judicially
incapable, the other will occupy the first place in the order of preference for
guardianship.

Article 13.- Right to food.
The members of the couple are compelled to share food, with preference to any
other people legally compelled.

Article 14.- Non-existence of relativity.
The stable unmarried couple does not generate any relative relationship between
its members and the relatives of the other.

Article 15.- United testament.
The members of the stable unmarried couple can testament as united in conformity
conforming to what is exposed in the Aragon succession legislation.

Article 16.- Pacts of succession.
The members of the stable unmarried couple can give pacts of succession in the
terms foreseen in the Aragon succession legislation.

Article 17.- Trust.
Each member of the stable unmarried couple can order the succession of the other
through trust according to what is regulated in the Aragon succession
legislation.

Article 18.- Public Rights Aragon Normative.
The rights and obligations established for the couple in the Public Rights
Aragon Normative, without a tributary character, will be of equal application
for the members of the stable unmarried couple.

First additional disposition.- Matrimonial Capitulation.
The regime of cohabitation and rights and obligations of the stable unmarried
couple, agreed in public writing, will acquire the value of matrimonial
capitulation, in the case that the members of the couple married, if they had so
accorded it expressively in the writing.

Second additional disposition.- Time for the creation of the administrative
Registry.
In the time period of six months since the publication of this Law, the General
Aragon Deputy will regulate the creation and regime of functioning of the
administrative Registry of stable unmarried couples.

Final disposition.- Beginning of the Law application.
The present Law will be applied six months from its publication in the Aragon
Official Bulletin.


FRENCH SENATE DUMPS PARTNERS BILL
By Rex Wockner

The French Senate March 18 rejected a measure passed by the National Assembly in
December that granted unmarried couples - gay and straight, romantic or not -
many of the rights and benefits of matrimony.

The vote was 216 to 99.

The Senators approved an alternate proposal by a vote of 192 to 117 that
recognizes only male-female cohabiting couples.

The measure that passed the Assembly 316-249 on Dec. 9 would have granted gay
couples rights in such areas as inheritance, housing, taxation, workplace
benefits, social security and social-welfare programs.


FRENCH ASSEMBLY APPROVES ANOTHER PARTNER BILL
By Rex Wockner

France's National Assembly again passed a measure April 7 to grant gay and
unmarried straight couples many of the rights and obligations of matrimony.

The vote was 300-253. Deputies affiliated with the leftist government parties
supported the bill while deputies from the opposition parties generally rejected
it.

Under the measure, partners must support each other financially and be jointly
liable for debts related to housing and living expenses. Spousal rights are
accorded in areas such as social-security benefits, synchronized vacation time,
immigration, taxation, inheritance and housing.

A similar bill passed the Assembly last Dec. 9 but was rejected by the Senate
March 18. The new measure now moves to the Senate.


UKRAINE GAY GROUP DENIED REGISTRA- TION
By Rex Wockner

Ukraine's Our World Gay and Lesbian Center is being denied government
registration.

The group's application forms have been sent to the national Ministry of Justice
for further review after local officials - who should have approved the request
- declined "to give a conclusion about the legality of the existence of citizens
with anomalous sexual orientation."

"Gays and lesbians were singled out into a separate group of persons and doubts
were cast on the legality of their existence and the possibility for them to
establish public associations of citizens," said an Our World spokesman. "It was
evident discrimination of Ukrainian citizens on the ground of sexual
orientation."

Our World invites faxed letters urging the group's application be oubted wether
her new relation with another woman, and the sole fact of her apparent
disposition, could possibly fit the interests of her children. Failures in the
juridical procedure were the ground for the decision of the court of appeal.

The judge who decided in the first instance divorce case, introduced by Lili
because she was been physically maltreated by her husband, got knowlegde of the
new relation and publicly doubted wether in would last for long. Without further
comment, the house, the furniture and the children got awarded to the husband.
Upon this, the woman started an appeal case, on which in spite of her formal
request hereto, no special urge-arrangements would be applied. 19 months after
the appeal had been lodged, the judge decided to award no changes to the
original court decision. He hereby expressed his doubts wether "the appealer's,
supposed, [sexual] disposition was as well her authentical and original
disposition". He furthermore drew attention to the possible negative effect of
the difference between the norms in society in general and those in the family
to be. Finally the judge alluded to the lifestyle of Lilis friend not being
suitable to be a good breeder of her own, and Lili's children.

This second stage decision has now been rejected by the court of appeal, for
procedure-errors; the decision had been made without the presence of a public
prosecutor for youth cases. Any case that directly involves the interests of
children necessarily demands the presence of such a prosecutor. The case has now
been sent trough to the Brussels court of instance, for a renewed treatment.

The technical ground for the divorce having been  insult', this being the
lesbian relationship, the husband meanwhile has been convicted to four months
jail for beating and wounding Lili and her friend.

Marriage: test case
On february 9th, the Antwerp Court of instance rejected the case of Priscilla, a
wedded transsexual, who had asked to let her birth-certificate be adjusted to
her acquired sex. This is an important decision for Belgian gay and lesbian
interests, because the fact that she insisted on letting her long existing
marriage with a female partner intact, was the central motive for the Courts
decision.

The court sees a divorce as the only unfullfilled condition to award the
requested juridical sex-change, although the Belgian law doesn't meet the case
in supplying a formal ground for a divorce.

Formerly, legal sex changes were granted to transsequals who applied for this.
The sole fact that a couple becomes a same sex couple, for the legislator
apparently changes the status of the relation in such a fundamental way, that
the prolongation of the official recognition of it becomes unthinkable. On the
occasion of this decision FWH again fiercely protested against this unfair
situation.

Several Flemish parties, among which the socialists, liberals and the greens,
have yet in the past declared to be in favour of opening up the civil marriage
to same sex couples. It is hoped that a consensus can be found before the coming
national elections, about a proposal on registrated partnership that can as well
find the support of the christian-democratics.

In the mean time, Priscilla and FWH still consider further proceedings on the
legal path, like the Belgian court of appeal, or the European Court for Human
Rights.

DEBATE IN SPAIN OVER POLICE FILES OF TIMES PAST
By Cesar Leston.- Fundacion Triangulo

The issue is an ongoing pollemic in Spain now:wether police files on homosexuals
arrested during Franco's period should be destroyed.

Incredible as it may sound, the pollemic took place after the police arrested
recently some persons on grounds of the records from that period, who have never
been destroyed and are still at hand for the police forces to use.

Such files are an very important testimonial of a not-that-long-ago bleak period
of our history, when homosexuality was illegal and people were arrested, not
only for what they did  but mainly for what they were. And this is an important
thing for future generations to be known. Written evidence is crucial when it
comes to researching . Fundacion Triangulo strongly believes such records ought
to be kept as a precious document for future generations to study.

Such destruction would also violate the provisions of our legislation. According
to the spanish heritage law, those records can not be destroyed; as much as any
other public document, they should be transferred to a Central Registry.

The law is very clear about that. On the other hand, the law also foresees that
documents containing sensible information regarding privacy of the individuals
should be kept secret at the central registry for twenty-five years after the
death of the person concerned. We thus feel privacy of the living persons is
well preserved for a reasonable amount of time.

On the other hand, another very important issue is that the information from
such files (on paper) has been partially stored in computer and is thus
accessible for police forces to use. We believe that, since homosexuality is
perfectly legal in Spain, such a procedure is an unmitigated disaster and
perfectly illegal and useless (at least for legal purposes) for the spanish law
(Law of protection of personal data - LORRTAD) also states that no information
regarding sexual orientation / habits may be used unless authorized by the
Protection Data Agency... and such authorisation has never been granted.

In a nutshell what we demand (and what we are asking you to support) is:

1) all police records from Franco's era regarding homosexual orientation should
be taken from police premises to the Central Registries where they should be
kept for twenty-five years before being made accessible. such police records
should NOT be destroyed under any circumstance.
2) all such police records having been stored in computers should be promptly
deleted. Assurances should be given either to the persons concerned ( their
relatives if dead) or the Government Agency for Proteccion of [Personal] Data
that such deletion has indeed taken place

Such demands are the mere result of implementing laws in force. The danger of
destruction of the files is real. Although the body ruling the judiciary
authorities (CGPJ) has made it clear the files can not just be destroyed,
already some authorities (MP's) have said they support it. In our view, this is
a way to let the past fall in oblivion and thus face the risk of repeating it.
Please, never again.

If you support this request, please send a message to Fundacion Triangulo
cleston@... , stating in the subject:  "I support your request on the
police files issue". Or feel free to provide us new reasons or write to spanish
authorities. Your pressure, no matter how little, is really precious.

Obviously we also encourage you to forward this message to any
persons/institutions whom you may feel are interested by the subject.


ILGA-EUROPE STATEMENT IN THE INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE 'FREEDOM, SECURITY,
JUSTICE: AN AGENDA FOR EUROPE' ON 24 MARCH
By Kurt Krickler

My name is Kurt Krickler, and I represent the European Region of the
International Lesbian and Gay Association, ILGA-Europe. I would like to address
two aspects of this discussion concerning lesbians and gays who are often
completely ignored or neglected in this debate.

The first aspect is asylum. Some Member States recognise gays and lesbians as
belonging to a 'particular social group' which is, in case of persecution, one
of the five reasons for the right to be granted asylum mentioned in the Geneva
Convention. Other Member States grant asylum to persecuted gays and lesbians on
'humanitarian grounds' outside the Geneva Convention. Other members do not grant
asylum to people persecuted on the grounds of their homosexuality. If there is
harmonisation in asylum matters in the EU, we demand that gays and lesbians be
recognised as belonging to a 'particular social group' according to the Geneva
Convention and, therefore, be granted asylum in case of persecution.

Moreover, some countries have 'white lists' of countries whose citizens would
not be granted asylum because they are deemed as countries under the rule of
law. Among the countries on those lists, there are, however, countries with a
total ban on homosexuality, even between consenting adults. We demand that those
countries be deleted from such lists.

Indeed, when the Lindeperg report (A4-450/98) was debated in this Parliament
last months, smaller political groups tabled amendments to this effect.
Unfortunately and to our great disappointment, all these amendments addressing
the specific situation of gays and lesbians in asylum matters, were defeated by
the majority of this Parliament, and also the rapporteur, Ms Lindeperg, did not
support these amendments.

The other aspect I would like to address is the freedom of movement for gays and
lesbians which is heavily impeded by the non-recognition of same-sex couples,
even of those couples who are legally 'married' in their native countries. As
you may know, some Member States - Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands - have
introduced 'Registered Partnership' for same-sex couples.

This non-recognition, in pratical life, means that a same-sex couple cannot
freely move to another Member State if one of the partners is either a non-EU
citizen (although legally residing in the Member State of the partner) or an EU
citizen but cannot find work in the potential host EU country. A married
heterosexual couples in either of these circumstances would not have any problem
to move together to another Member State.

Since the free movement of citizens is one of the main pillars of the Union, it
is totally unacceptable that such obstacles to the free movement still prevail.
We appeal to this Parliament to remedy this situation.

Again, last month, when the Lehne report (A4-045/99) was debated in this
Parliament, some smaller political groups tabled amendments to this effect but
again, the great majority of this House rejected them.

ILGA-Europe regrets the lack of support for equal rights of gays and lesbians in
this Parliament. It is not enough to condemn the violation of the human rights
of lesbians and gays in the annual EP reports on the respect of human rights in
the EU. This Parliament has a crucial role in defending the equal rights of all
people.


BRITISH COLONIES MUST LEGALIZE GAY SEX
By Rex Wockner

Britain will offer U.K. citizenship to the residents of its colonies on the
condition that the colonies end corporal punishment, legalize gay sex and
tighten financial controls to prevent money laundering and other problems,
Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said last week.

The dependent territories include Anguilla, Ascension Island, Bermuda, the
British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands,
St. Helena, South Georgia, Tristan de Cunha, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Territories that presently have no permanent residents are also included - the
Chagos Islands, the British Antarctic Territory, and the South Sandwich Islands.
People in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands already have British citizenship.

"We require changes in the law in a minority of Overseas Territories which
retain corporal punishment and criminalize consensual homosexual acts in
private," Cook said.

Gay sex is banned in the Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman
Islands, Anguilla and Montserrat.

If a territory refuses to decriminalize homosexuality it will be forced to do so
by London, Cook said.


CAYMANS WILL NOT LEGALIZE GAY SEX
By Rex Wockner

The Cayman Islands government is up-in-arms over Britain's plan to offer U.K.
citizenship to the residents of its colonies if the territories end corporal
punishment, legalize gay sex and tighten controls to prevent money laundering.

The government said April 1: "We abide by the views of the vast majority of
Caymanians who live in a Christian community based on firmly held religious
beliefs that homosexuality should not be legalized."

Last year, the Caymans denied landing rights to a cruise ship carrying 900 gay
men.

British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook says London is willing to force the changes
on its Overseas Territories if they refuse to act. Gay sex is illegal in
Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, Montserrat, the Caymans and the Turks and
Caicos Islands.

Other dependent territories covered by the citizenship plan include Ascension
Island, Bermuda, the Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, South Georgia, Tristan de
Cunha, the Chagos Islands, the British Antarctic Territory, and the South
Sandwich Islands. People in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands already have
British
citizenship.

BRITAIN TO WELCOME GAY ASYLUM SEEKERS
By Rex Wockner

A March 26 ruling by Britain's highest court, the House of Lords, opened the
door for foreign gays seeking asylum from persecution based on "sexual
identity."

The Law Lords' 4-to-1 ruling came in the case of two Pakistani women who sought
refuge to escape flogging or stoning for adultery.

The court said women from Islamic nations and gays from various countries could
seek asylum in the United Kingdom under the "particular social group" provisions
of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees.

Anti-gay persecution could be direct, as under anti-sodomy laws, or indirect, as
when a government fails to protect homosexuals and heterosexuals equally, the
Lords said.

AUSTRIA: 11 MEN JAILED UNDER ANTI-GAY STATUTE
by Helmut GRAUPNER, Rechtskomitee LAMBDA, Vienna

According to recent information (1) given to the Austrian parliament by the
Austrian Minister of Justice, Dr. Nikolaus Michalek, currently (01.03.99) 11 men
are jailed in Austrian correctional institutions under the anti-homosexual Art.
209 CC which does set a special (additional) age of consent for (consensual) gay
sex of 18 years while the general age limit (for all hetero- and homosexual
relations alike) is set at 14 years (Art. 206, 207 CC).

These 11 men are jailed either solely on the basis of Art. 209 (which is
classified as a "crime" as opposed to a "misdemeanor") or on the basis of Art.
209 and a petty offence only. Men convicted (or suspected) of Art. 209 as well
as of another "crime" are not included in this number. 5 of these 11 are being
held in custody on remand and  5 in corrective custody. One of the 11 men is
even held in a psychiatric institution for "psychically abnorm breachers of the
law", for an indefinite term ... (1a)

In November 1996 Austrian parliament voted upon the repeal of Art. 209. The
result: 91 votes for, 91 against; the law stayed. Hitherto repression
continuously intensified.

According to the criminal statistics reports to police more than doubled from
1996 to 1997 (1996: 45, 1997: 115), the number of ascertained suspects raised by
50% (1996: 26, 1997: 39). Even before the vote in 1996 the courts reacted to the
reformatory efforts with inexorable severity. In 1995 the proportion of prison
sentences (compared to all convictions under Art. 209) climbed to the highest
peak of the 10 years before (88%) and in 1996 this proportion climbed to even
94%, a number reached only in 1980 and before 1975, while in the case of sexual
abuse of children (under 14; Art. 206, 207 CC) Austrian courts in this year 1996
inflicted prison sentences in only 83% of convictions.(2)

More and more gay adolescents are being dragged into criminal proceedings under
Art. 209. In 1994 34% of reported suspects were under 25, 10% even under 20 and
5% under 19; in 1995 11% have even been between 14 and 16 years of age.(2)(3)
Reports of adolescents mistreated in police stations in order to get them
testify against their partners are numerous. Recently the case of a 16 year old
young gay man caused sensation. He had been called to a police station to
question him for sexual contacts with men. The interrogation lasted 4 hours at
night and the adolescent alleges that due to his unwillingnes he has repeatedly
been hit on his head. He went to a hospital where a contusion of the skull has
been diagnosed. His complaint against the mistreatment has been dismissed by the
"Independent Administrative Senate for Vienna". The official there judging the
case however himself is a police officer just on leave from the "Federal Police
Authority of Vienna" to judge complaints against exactly this authority. He
expressed doubts on the diagnosis by the hospital and dismissed the case. Both
the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court of Austria refused to
accept complaints against this decision; they saw no serious question of law.
The case is pending before the European Court on Human Rights.(4)

Austrian courts also continuously stiffened their case-law on Art. 209. In 1997
the Supreme Court decided that the offence of Art. 209 is as grievous an offence
as sexual abuse of children (under 14; Art. 207) and custody on remand can
therefore be imposed on the same terms as in the case of sexual contacts with
children under 14(5). In 1998 the Supreme Court abandoned its longstanding
case-law that (as opposed to the cases of sexual abuse of children under 14,
Art. 207 CC) "mere touching" of the genitals does not constitute the offence of
Art. 209 but attempt of the offence only (6). Hitherto "mere touching" provokes
the full severity of the law. Finally in 1998 the Administrative Court of
Austria decided the case of a man who had been suspected of sexual relations
with 16 and 17 year old young men. In spite of the fact that his innocence has
been proven the police refused his application to delete his criminal
identification data (fingerprints, fotos etc.) from the files as the law affords
in the case of proven innocence. The Constitutional Court refused to accept his
complaint against this decision and the Administrative Court upheld the decision
claiming that despite of his proven innocence and - as the court expressly held
- despite the fact that he never even intended to commit an offence the man for
special reasons is to be considered as a potential criminal since he was found
by police sitting in his car chatting with two adolescents (of 15 and 16 years
of age) and in his flat he had erotic pictures (no porn!) of young men of about
16 (7). As a result his criminal identification data will be stored in the
nation-wide computer based criminal identification data base  (and therefore
potentially also in the "Europol Information System EIS") up to (at least) his
80th birthday. Also this case is pending before the European Court on Human
Rights (8).

Given the continued intensification of repression and the stalemate in
parliament the Austrian l/g/b movement called on the (non-party) Minister of
Justice, Dr. Nikolaus Michalek, and the (socialdemocratic) Minister of Interior,
Mag. Karl Schlögl, within their field of competence to mitigate the consequences
of Art. 209. They refused to do so.

The president of the republic has the power to pardon convicts (and even to stop
every criminal proceedings whatsoever). He however can do so only on a
respective recommendation by the Minister of Justice. Minister Michalek refused
to do so even in the infamous "calendar case" where a young man of 28 has been
convicted solely on the basis of notes in his calendar while the court did never
ascertain the identity of the alleged "victims" (young men mostly 16 and 17,
some 15) which appeared in the calendar with their christian names and age only
and whose identity also the defendant never knew. He alleged he had relied on
the names they told and just estimated their age. In 1998 the Minister refused
to pardon this first-time "offender" who being an epileptic suffered a psychic
breakdown in court-room and as a result of the proceedings did loose his job and
hitherto has to live from emergency relief (9). Also the case of this man is
pending before the European Court on Human Rights (9a).

The Minister of Interior in his turn refused to waive criminal identification
data storage for suspects of Art. 209 (10). On the contrary he even ordered to
store DNA-data of Art. 209-suspects in each and every case and thereby equalized
Art. 209 with offences like rape (Art. 201), (Grave) Sexual Abuse of Children
(Art. 206, 207), Child Pornography (Art. 207a) and Misuse of a Relationship of
Authority over a Minor (Art. 212). Such a measure (as now taken for Art. 209)
has however not been taken for Procurement of Minors (of 14 and over; also by
their parents, guardians etc.) into sexual relations with other persons (Art.
213), Procurement into Prostitution (Art. 215), Pimping (Art. 216), not even for
Trafficking in Humans (Art. 217).(11)

Both, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Interior, point to the fact
that Art. 209 still is valid law and therefore has to be enforced (1)(11)(12).
As to the report of the European Commission on Human Rights in Sutherland vs. UK
(01.07.97) the Minister of Justice declared that the case concerned English law
and that the Commission with this decision departed from its longstanding
case-law on the issue. It would still be open, if the European Court on Human
Rights will follow this development of interpretation of the Convention (1).

By now five cases in connection with Art. 209 are pending before the European
Court on Human Rights. Besides the three mentioned above there is the case of a
young man of 27 convicted for consensual sex with a young man of 15 (13) and the
case of a young gay man of 17 from an Austrian rural area who alleges that -
given his lacking attraction to peers and furthermore the widespread
invisibility of gays of his age -   Art. 209 in fact refuses him the possibility
to engage in mutually consensual and fulfilling intimate relations. The constant
fear of criminal investigation against his (potential) partners and him being
involved in criminal proceedings being pressed to testify against his partners
puts him under considerable distress. This irksome situation even already caused
him to consider suicide.(14)


(1) Information 5312/AB-NR/1999 (19.03.99)
(1a) According to Art. 21 CC such an incarceration for an indefinite period is
admissible only if a danger is established that the person in question will
commit an offence causing grievous harm (as opposed to "light consequences" or
"not just light consequences").
(2) For details see Ius Amandi (4) 98 (1)
(3) Men under 19 can not be principals of the offence since Art. 209 expressly
covers "same sex lewdness between a person of 19 and over with a male person
between 14 and under 18". Adolescents between 14 and (under) 19 however can
fulfil the crime of aiding and abetting the crime of Art. 209 (Art. 12, 209 CC).
Persons under 14 can not be punished (Art. 9 Juvenile Justice Act).
(4) Case No. 46608/99; For details see Ius Amandi (4) 98 (1)
(5) OGH 09.07.1997 (13 Os 104/97) (for details see Ius Amandi (6) 97 (3));
Austrian law on custody on remand distinguishes between offences causing "light
consequences", causing "not just light consequences" and causing "grievous
harm". The Supreme Court now holds that consensual gay male relations with young
men of 14 to 18 and sexual contacts with persons under 14 do both cause "not
just light consequences". Custody on remand based on the fear of repetition can
therefore also be imposed on first time offenders.
(6) OGH 24.11.1998 (14 Os 142, 143/98)
(7) VwGH 24.06.1998 (97/01/261)
(8) Case No. 46611/99
(9) For details see Ius Amandi (4) 98 (2) and Information 5035/J-NR/1998
(9a) ECmHR App No. 39392/98 (application introduced with the Commission but not
declared admissible until 01.11.98)
(10) Information 4173/AB-NR/1998 (21.07.1998)
(11) Information 5301/AB-NR/1999 (18.03.99)
(12) Information 5312/AB-NR/1999 (19.03.99)
(13) ECmHR App No. 39829/98 (application introduced with the Commission but not
declared admissible until 01.11.98)
(14) Case No. 45330/99


SEXUAL LAW REFORM IN LIECHTENSTEIN: DISCRIMINATION OF GAY MEN TO BE EXTENDED
LESBIANS
by Helmut GRAUPNER, Rechtskomitee LAMBDA, Vienna

In February 99 the Liechtenstein government presented to parliament a proposal
for a major reform of the law on sexual offences.

Traditionally Liechtenstein took over the Austrian Criminal Law. Also the
current Criminal Code of the year 1989 is an almost identical copy of the
Austrian CC of 1975.

In 1996 however the Liechtenstein government installed a working group of
experts to independently revise its CC. This working group presented its report
in 1997 and the government decided - in a first step to a total revision of the
Code - to revise the law on sexual offences.

The current proposal will remarkably modernize the sexual offences law and the
government expressly declared its intention to free the law from moralistic
intentions. Significantly the heading of the respective section will be changed
from "Offences Against Decency" to "Offences Against Sexual Self-Determination".
Also the offences of "Advertising Lewdness with Persons of the Same Sex or with
Animals" (Art. 220 CC 1989) and "Associations for the Propagation of Samesex
Lewdness" (Art. 221 CC 1989) shall be repealed.

The more astonishing it seems that the government refuses to equalize the
currently unequal ages of consent for gay male and other sexual relations. Art.
205 and 206 CC 1989 set a general limit of 14 years (for all hetero- and
homosexual relations) and an additional limit for gay males of 18 (Art. 208 CC
1989).

According to the draft bill the general age limit should be kept at 14 (Art.
205, 206) and a new offence be created that should outlaw sexual relations with
14 and 15 year old youths if they occur "against remuneration" or if a "position
of distress" ("Notlage") is practised upon (Art. 208 par. 1 lit. 2). With this
new provision the government follows the model of the German CC which introduced
such a law in 1994 (1). At the same time however Germany did abolish the special
higher age limit for gay male relations (former Art. 175: 18 years) while the
Liechtenstein government now wants to keep the special provision against gay
male relations, only the age limit should be reduced from 18 to 16 (Art. 208
par. 1 lit. 1). And it even intends to extend this provision to lesbians (ibid).

As a result lesbian and gay relations with 14 and 15 year old young women and
men would be criminal in each and every instance while heterosexual relations
would be legal unless remuneration is granted or a position of distress be
practised upon.

While the Government in its draft bill calls the current Art. 208 a
"discriminatory provision" and points to longstanding criticism from lawyers,
practitioners and academics, it states that the possibility of a fixation of
sexual orientation by homosexual experience would (also) be given after 14 (up
to 16) what would afford a total ban of lesbian and gay sex in that age group.
The government does not give a (scientific) basis for its conviction.

While the Supreme Court of Liechtenstein expressly welcomed the new Art. 208
several groups and organisations criticized the continuation of the
discrimination of homosexual relations, among them the Psychological
Association, the Liechtenstein Federation of Teachers, the Office for Social
Services, the Women Refuge Center, the Equal Treatment Authority and others.(2)

We suggest that ILGA-Europe takes action and does urge the Liechtenstein
parliament ("Landtag") to end the current discrimination of gay men by securing
that all provisions apply equally to homo- and heterosexual relations instead of
even extending discrimination to lesbians.

The Liechtenstein government however did not take over the third variant of Art.
182 German CC: "practising upon a lack of ability to sexual self-determination";
and it changed the term "constraint" ("Zwangslage") of the German law into
"distress" ("Notlage").

cf. Bericht und Antrag der Regierung an den Landtag des Fürstentums
Liechtenstein betreffend die Abänderung des Strafgesetzbuches (Sexualstrafrecht)
und Stellungnahme der Regierung zur Initiative der Freien Liste, (58ff) Vaduz
(1999)


THE ANTILLES MAY NOT ACCEPT GAY/LESBIAN PARTNERSHIPS
By Michiel Odijk

MARCH 1999. The perspective of the opening of Dutch marriage legislation for
same-sex couples is not appealing for everyone. The government coalition
(social-democrats, social liberals, right-wing liberals) of the Netherlands is
working on legal changes so that same-sex couples can not only have a
partnership registration, but exactly the same legal construction as
opposite-sex couples can have - including the adoption rights. The Minister of
Justice of the Dutch Antilles, Mr Martha, however, recently declared that he
will consider changing the Antilles rule by which Dutch marriages and adoptions
are automatically recognized in the Antilles when the Netherlands will introduce
these legal changes. The Antilles gay organization has protested against this
view and has asked a meeting with their Minister.


YOUNG GAY MEN DENIED EQUALITY BY BRITISH HOUSE OF LORDS
Press release from STONEWALL

The outdated House of Lords 13 April threw out government-backed proposals to
equalise the age of gay consent. Gay lobbyists and child care organisations
expressed anger at the rejection of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, which
would also have provided equal protection from sexual exploitation for all young
women and men.

Tonight's vote, however, was much closer. Baroness Young's majority was slashed
from last July's 168 votes to just 76. 222 Lords voted with her to wreck the
Bill, but 146 voted for equality. The quality of speeches made tonight was much
higher than on previous occasions, with Lord Alli throwing his personal and
moving testimony of life as a young gay man behind the argument for an equal age
of consent.

The vote against equal treatment and equal protection, marshalled by Baroness
Young, has exposed the great divide between the House of Lords on one side and
expert and public opinion on the other. This Bill was supported by all the major
organisations concerned with the welfare of Britain's young people, by medical
opinion, by the House of Commons and by two thirds of the British public. (NOP
poll 1999)  Young, backed by the far-right Christian Institute, invoked a rare
parliamentary procedure to wreck the Bill, preventing any further debate. The
Lords have denied to all young people extra protection from those who may abuse
their authority, solely to prevent young gay men receiving equal treatment under
the law.

The Government, however, has made it quite clear they will ensure that the
decision of the elected House will prevail and that they will invoke the
Parliament Act (1949) to see the age of consent proposals through the Lords and
into law.

Angela Mason, executive director of Stonewall, said:

"This is a very sad night for those who believe in equality. It is quite clear
that the Lords are completely out of touch with modern Britain. "All those
concerned with the welfare of young people supported this Bill. We hoped that
the Lords would listen not only to the experts but also to medical opinion, to
the elected House and to two-thirds of public opinion - all supporting this
Bill."


NEW ILGA LEGAL SURVEY
By Nigel Warner
The International Lesbian and Gay Association has published a survey of the
legal and human rights situation of sexual minorities around the world at its
web site. It is believed to be the most extensive survey of its kind ever
produced.
The purpose of the survey is to provide a comprehensive, authoritative, source
of information for all people working to promote the human rights of lesbians,
gays, bisexuals and transgendered people. It will be a "living" resource,
continually updated to reflect developments in the world wide campaign for LGBT
rights.
The survey includes a page for each country in a standard format with sections
covering the sexual offences law, freedom of expression and association,
anti-discrimination legislation, employment protection legislation, recognition
of lesbian and gay partnerships, parenting, asylum, violence against LGBT
people, police harassment, and human rights issues affecting transgendered
people and people with HIV/AIDS. The country pages are linked to other more
detailed sources, including legal texts, government reports and legal
judgements.
There are also some 50 summaries listing everything from countries where lesbian
and gay relationships are illegal to countries where adoption by lesbians and
gays is permitted.
Inevitably there are many gaps, and the quality of some of the information is
uncertain. Indeed, the survey as now published is very much a start point. ILGA
hopes that individuals and organisations with a good knowledge of the legal and
human rights situation in their country will join with ILGA in working to
improve the quality of the information and in keeping it up to date. All sources
of information will be acknowledged.
If you have a web site, please provide a link to the ILGA web site,



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/euroletter
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

MEDIA RELEASE - PLEASE POST TO YOUR LOCAL ACTIVIST LIST
The International Lesbian and Gay Association has published a survey of the
legal and human rights situation of sexual minorities around the world at its
web site. It is believed to be the most extensive survey of its kind ever
produced.
The purpose of the survey is to provide a comprehensive, authoritative, source
of information for all people working to promote the human rights of lesbians,
gays, bisexuals and transgendered people. It will be a "living" resource,
continually updated to reflect developments in the world wide campaign for LGBT
rights.
The survey includes a page for each country in a standard format with sections
covering the sexual offences law, freedom of expression and association,
anti-discrimination legislation, employment protection legislation, recognition
of lesbian and gay partnerships, parenting, asylum, violence against LGBT
people, police harassment, and human rights issues affecting transgendered
people and people with HIV/AIDS. The country pages are linked to other more
detailed sources, including legal texts, government reports and legal
judgements.
There are also some 50 summaries listing everything from countries where lesbian
and gay relationships are illegal to countries where adoption by lesbians and
gays is permitted.
Inevitably there are many gaps, and the quality of some of the information is
uncertain. Indeed, the survey as now published is very much a start point. ILGA
hopes that individuals and organisations with a good knowledge of the legal and
human rights situation in their country will join with ILGA in working to
improve the quality of the information and in keeping it up to date. All sources
of information will be acknowledged.
If you have a web site, please provide a link to the ILGA web site.
Nigel Warner
Co-ordinator of the ILGA-World web site
ILGA Web Site: http://www.ilga.org

The International Lesbian and Gay Association is a world-wide federation of
national and local groups dedicated to achieving equal rights for lesbians, gay
men, bisexuals and transgendered people everywhere.  Founded in 1978, it now has
more than 350 member organisations. Every continent and around 80 countries are
represented.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/euroletter
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Dear EuroLetter subscriber

THERE WAS UNFORTUNATELY A MISTAKE IN THE LAST INFORMSTION.
THE CORRECT URL IS GIVEN BELOW. SORRY

A full index of all Euroletters up till and including no 67
is now avaiable at this URL:

http://www.steff.suite.dk/eur_inde.htm

Yours,

Steffen Jensen




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/euroletter
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Dear EuroLetter subscriber

A full index of all Euroletters up till and including no 67
is now avaiable at this URL:

http://www.steff.suite.dk/eur_inde.hml

Yours,

Steffen Jensen



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/euroletter
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

EURO-LETTER

No. 68      March 1999

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European
Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and
Lesbian International Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National
Association for Gays and Lesbians.
Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen
and Soeren Baatrup.
Contact to Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@... URL:
http://www.steff.suite.dk Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile:
+45 2033 0840 Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610
Copenhagen V, Denmark

You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and from no 30 onwards the
Euro-Letters are available on the Internet at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html


IN THIS ISSUE
SWEDEN: NEW LEGISLATION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION AT THE LABOUR MARKET
UK: BAN VIOLATES EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON FOUR COUNTS
REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FAIRLY POPULAR IN THE NETHERLANDS
SWEDISH PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN OF LESBIANS AND GAYS
GAY-FRIENDLINESS OF ALL SWEDISH MUNICIPALITIES EXAMINED
GUERNSEY LOWERED AGE OF CONSENT TO 18 - NOT YET
UN-COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD SUGGESTS TO EXTEND
DISCRIMINATION  OF GAY ADOLESCENTS TO LESBIAN ADOLESCENTS
ANDALUSIA: BLEAK PROSPECTS IN THE SPANISH PARLIAMENT
NORDIC GAY/LESBIAN STUDENT CONGRESS
LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX PARTNERSHIPS, A CONFERENCE ON NATIONAL,
EUROPEAN, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in
Europe can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm
A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding same-sex
partners can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm
Consolidated versions of the basic treaties of the European Union
including amendments from the Amsterdam Treaty can be found at this
web-site: http://ue.eu.int/Amsterdam/en/traiteco/en1.htm


SWEDEN: NEW LEGISLATION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION AT THE LABOUR MARKET
By RFSL

The Swedish Parliament did 4 March vote in favour of new legislation
against discrimination at the labour market. One of the laws involves a
ban on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The law will apply to all sections of the labour market as well as all
categories of employees including applicants for a job. The ban on
discrimination of applicants will include the whole recruiting process
even if the applicant is not employed. The ban will also include all the
employer's decision concerning promotion, salary, notice and dismissal.
Employers also have to investigate and take measures in the case of
harassment between employees.

The law is welcomed by RFSL (The Swedish Federation for Lesbian and Gay
Rights). Christine Gilljam, RFSL's president, is however concerned about
the exception rules of the new legislation. Which might imply that a
religious private school can reject a gay or lesbian teacher without
violating the law. According to RFSL religious ideology should never be
an excuse for discrimination against homosexuals.

The law will come into force on 1 May 1999. At the same time a newly
appointed Ombudsman against discrimination on the grounds of sexual
orientation will take office.


UK: BAN VIOLATES EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON FOUR COUNTS
By STONEWALL

The European Court of Human Rights 26 February declared that the case of
the four armed forces personnel, sacked because they were gay, was
admissible. The Court found that the blanket ban was a prima facie
violation of Article 3, "inhuman or degrading treatment"; Article 8, the
"right to privacy"; Article 10, "freedom of expression"; and Article 14,
"freedom from discrimination".

There will be a full and final hearing of the case, early this summer,
before the full Court. It is likely that the case will be successful. If
so, the Ministry of Defence would be forced to lift the blanket ban on
gays serving in the military by the end of the year.

Angela Mason, Executive Director of Stonewall, said: "The ban on
lesbians and gays serving in the British Armed Forces is inhumane,
unnecessary and wrong. We are delighted that the European Court agrees
and is prepared to uphold the rights of lesbians and gay men."

John Wadham, Director of human rights organisation Liberty, said: "We
believe that the days of the ban are numbered. There is a real prospect
that it will be lifted by the end of the year."

Stephen Grosz, of Bindmans solicitors, said: "The speed at which the
ECHR has acted in highlighting the four breaches of the Convention is a
measure of the significance it attaches to this case."

Duncan Lustig-Prean, spokesperson for Rank Outsiders, said: "We will now
see that there was never any justification for this deeply intrusive,
humiliating and degrading policy."


REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FAIRLY POPULAR IN THE NETHERLANDS
by Kees Waaldijk  (waaldijk@...) December 1998

Since January 1998 Dutch law provides for partnership registration. Both
same-sex and different-sex couples can register their partnership. That
status has almost all of the legal consequences of marriage (for
exceptions and further detail see www.xs4all.nl/~nvihcoc/marriage.html).

Registrations have normally been possible since mid January, although in
some cases of terminal illness registration has been allowed to take
place in the first week of the year. Below are the numbers of
partnership registrations that took place in the first ten months (the
source is the Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics,
www.cbs.nl/nl/cijfers/kerncijfers/sbv0603a.htm). The figures are per
couple (not per person).

In those ten months almost 4000 partnership registrations took place in
the Netherlands. A total of almost 1200 registrations were between women
(in Denmark it took more than six years, since the introduction in 1989,
before such a number was reached), and a total of  just over 1500
registrations were between men (in Denmark two years were needed to
reach such a number; see www.lbl.dk/partstat.htm). A total of almost
1300 heterosexual partnerships have been registered in the Netherlands
(in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland only same-sex couples can
register their partnership).

If you take into account that the Netherlands have three times as many
inhabitants as Denmark, registered partnership seems equally popular
among gay men in these two countries, and somewhat rather popular among
Dutch lesbians than among Danish lesbians.

The Dutch figures:

Month          F/F     M/M     F/M     Total

January         65         119       59     243
February     119         212     159     490
March         120         191    191     502
April            173         175     149    497
May             146        194     145    485
June              146       154     138     438
July              103        143     139     385
August          106       104     106     316
September     130      124     101     355
October        90          91      104     285

Total          1198        1507   1291    3996


SWEDISH PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN OF LESBIANS AND GAYS
By Martin Andreasson

On 4 February 1999, the Swedish government appointed a parliamentary
committee which will examine whether same-sex registered partners should
be allowed to adopt children.

The first task of the committee is to examine the situation for children
in lesbian or gay families. The committee is supposed to collect
existing knowledge about these children and, if needed, commission
further studies. The committee shall also find out what kind of support
these children and their parents may need from the authorities.

The second task is to decide whether same-sex couples should be allowed
to adopt children or become joint custodians. This decision shall be
based on the principle of the best interest of the child, and on the
findings presented about the situation of children in same-sex families.

Should the committee decide to propose adoption rights for lesbians and
gays, it shall also consider whether lesbians should be allowed to be
inseminated or receive in-vitro fertilisation at public health clinics.

The committee shall present its report to the Swedish government in
early 2001. Mr. Göran Ewerlöf, head of division at the court of appeal
of Stockholm, will chair the committee. The rest of the members will be
party politicians, selected with respect to the parliamentary strength
of their parties. This is in line with normal Swedish political
procedures.

Among the Swedish political parties, the Left party (with 12 percent of
the seats in Parliament) is the only one to openly support full equality
for lesbian/gay parents. Many politicians in the Green and Liberal
parties (5 percent respectively) also work for legal reforms. The Social
Democratic and Conservative parties (36 percent and 23 percent
respectively) have agreed to let the commission examine the issue,
whereas the Christian Democratic party (12 percent) is the only party to
openly oppose all legal reforms for lesbian/gay parents.


GAY-FRIENDLINESS OF ALL SWEDISH MUNICIPALITIES EXAMINED
By Martin Andreasson

RFSL (the Swedish federation for lesbian and gay rights) has presented a
ground-breaking study of the local situation for lesbians, gays and
bisexuals in all the 288 Swedish municipalities. It is likely to be the
first time ever that all municipalities in a whole country have been
examined regarding their gay-friendliness.

In Sweden, very many of the tasks of the public sector are performed by
the local municipalities. For example, the child care system, the
primary and secondary school system and the geriatric care system are
all within the municipal sphere. However, the study by RFSL does not
only examine the activities of the municipalities as such, but also the
local climate and the social situation in general for lesbians, gays and
bisexuals.

The study is based on facts collected from questionnaires to all
municipalities (254 out of 288 responded), all counties (21 out of 21
responded) and all local branches of RFSL (28 out of 29 responded). To
these questionnaires were added the findings from various research
studies made about the local situation for lesbians and gays concerning
the fear for hate crimes, the extent of hate crimes and the attitude of
the general public towards lesbians and gays. This plurality of sources
enabled RFSL to make a fairly accurate description of the situation even
in those municipalities where, e.g., the local authorities never replied
to the questionnaire.

The findings were translated into figures, thereby making it possible to
put all municipalities on a ranking list. The "winner" was Malmö (the
third largest city), followed by the capital of Stockholm and the
northern university town of Umeå. At the bottom of the list came the
town of Hudiksvall in the province of Hälsingland.

The following aspects were examined:

1.  Education and youth issues
1a. Do the education guidelines of the municipality say anything about
sex education, education about homosexuality or the situation of
lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils or students?
1b. Is there any centre for sex and health counselling for young people?

1c. Has RFSL at any time during 1997 or 1998 visited any schools to
inform about homosexuality?

2.  Partnership officiators
How many partnership officiators is there in the municipality, and how
many civil wedding officiators?

3.  Staff training
Has any of the following categories of the people employed by the
municipality received any kind of information about homosexuality,
relevant to the function of the staff?
3a. Child care staff
3b. School staff
3c. The social services
3d. Geriatric care staff
3e. Immigrant centres

4.  The lesbian and gay community
4a. Does there exist any kind of local group or organisation for
lesbians, gays and bisexuals?
4b. Does the local municipality grant any money to local l/g/b groups?
4c. Is the municipality informed about the existence of local l/g/b
groups?
4d. Does there exist any commercial venues (bars, discos etc.) for
lesbians, gays and bisexuals?
4e. Has the local municipality taken any steps (other than financial
support to l/g/b groups) in order to ameliorate the situation for
lesbians, gays and bisexuals?

5.  The number of RFSL members in comparison to the population
The number of RFSL members in each municipality was compared to the
total number of inhabitants.

6.  Fear of hate crimes
The Swedish criminologist Eva Tiby has studied to what extent Swedish
lesbians, gays and bisexuals are afraid of being victims of hate crimes.
Her figures describe the local situation in almost all parts of Sweden.

7.  Frequency of hate crimes
Eva Tiby has also documented the number of hate crimes against lesbians,
gays and bisexuals being reported. Her figures also describe the local
situation in almost all parts of Sweden.

8.  The attitude of the general public
The National Institute of Public Health (Folkhälsoinstitutet) has
financed a study which will examine the attitude of the general public
towards lesbians and gays. The preliminary findings of this study show
large variations between the different regions of Sweden.


GUERNSEY LOWERED AGE OF CONSENT TO 18 - NOT YET
by Helmut GRAUPNER, Rechtskomitee LAMBDA, Vienna

In Euroletter 67 it was reported: "The Guernsey Parliament has lowered
the self-governing island's age of consent for gay sex. The age
(previously 21) was lowered to 18, but remains unequal to the
heterosexual age of consent of 16."

In a letter to Helmut Graupner however the Bailiff of Guernsey on
11.02.1999 however indicated: "The States of Guernsey (the Parliament of
Guernsey) at their meeting on the 28th January, 1999, agreed in
principle to lower the age of consent for male homosexual relations from
21 to 18 and directed the preparation of the necessary legislation to
give effect to this decision. In due course a draft law will be
presented to the States of Guernsey for approval."


UN-COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD SUGGESTS TO EXTEND
DISCRIMINATION  OF GAY ADOLESCENTS TO LESBIAN ADOLESCENTS
By Helmut GRAUPNER, Rechtskomitee LAMBDA, Vienna

Platform Against Art. 209, the national coalition of (nearly all)
Austrian l/g organizations and a lot of „mainstream" associations, filed
a complaint against the discriminatory age of consent for gay men in
Austria (Art. 209 CC: 18 years, while 14 for HTS and lesbians) with the
UN-Committee for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in
Geneva. The Platform argued that Art. 209 violates the right of
adolescents to privacy and the right of gay and bisexual youth to
non-discrimination (Art. 2, 3 ,12 & 16 CRC) and asked the Committee in
the framework of the examination of the Austrian report according to
Art. 44 CRC (CRC/C/11/Add. 14) to urge the Republic of Austria
immediately to repeal Art. 209 of the Austrian penal code.

Platform against Art. 209 filed its complaint in German language in
February 98 and could achieve the support of the Geneva based NGO Group
for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since none of the current
Members of the Committee however does know German they asked for an
English translation which we sent nearly one week before the first
meeting between NGOs and the Committee on 8th June. Due to postal errors
the translation did arrive late. Luckily however our Platform has been
represented in the meeting by Mr. Paul Arzt, Child and Youth Ombudsman
of the State of Salzburg, and he had in his possession a faxed copy of
the (English version of the) report and once he and the NGO Group
realized the extent of the Committee's interest in the issue, they
quickly made copies of the report (in English) and distributed it to the
Committee members during the course of the meeting. The Committee asked
a number of questions with regards to the issue which Mr. Arzt was able
to answer to the satisfaction of the Committee and the NGO Group
believed that the Committee would raise the issue with the Austrian
government during the examination of the initial (Government) report in
January 1999.

Indeed the Committee raised the issue with the Austrian government and
asked for a written comment and during the hearings with the
representatives of Austrian government on 12th and 13th January in
Geneva members of the Committee criticized the position of Austria (see
protocols of the 508th session (par. 12, 78) and 509th session (par.
34)).

At the end of the first day of the hearings the Austrian "National
Coalition for the Implementation of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of
the Child" (consisting among others of the Austrian Federal Youth
Council, UNICEF Austria, and the Permanent Conference of Austrian Child
and Youth Ombudspersons) submitted "Final Recommendations" to the
Committee calling on it to ask Austria to comply with the resolutions of
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the
EU-Parliament which demanded the repeal of Art. 209 (see text below).

At the end of January the Committee however released its "Concluding
Observations" which do not only ignore the issue but even suggest that
the age limit for lesbian relations be raised to 18 as well. The report
says, that "the Committee recommends that the State party consider
undertaking an in-depth study relating to ages, sexual consent and
sexual relations ... with a view to making it as conducive to the
realization of the rights of girls as it may be for boys".

So the position of the Committee is not that the discriminatory age
limit for gay men in Austria violates "the rights of boys" but instead
the absence of such a law for lesbians would violate "the rights of
girls" (presumably to be protected against lesbian women).

The text of the "Concluding Observations" does not allow to be
interpreted as suggesting to raise the age limit for heterosexuals to 18
as well (an age limit as high as no jurisdiction upon the whole European
continent has or ever had for heterosexual relations). The Committee
clearly speaks about "making (the law) as conducive to the realisation
of the rights of girls as it may be for boys". So girls should be as
effectively protected as boys are now by Austrian law. But a difference
(seemingly a "deficit" in the eyes of the Committee) between boys and
girls does exist only as regards homosexual relations (14 for lesbians
and 18 for gays). For heterosexual relations there is no difference (no
"deficit"); the age limit is 14 for girls and boys alike. So in the
heterosexual sphere there is no room for "making (the law) as conducive
to the realisation of the rights of girls as it may be for boys". See
also the first sentence of par. 16: "The Committee is concerned about
remaining instances of gender discrimination". Significantly the
criticism expressed by one member of the Committee during the sessions
with the Government of Austria addressed the difference between the age
limit for lesbians and for gay men only, but not in any way the
difference between the age of consent for heterosexual relations on the
one hand and homosexuals on the other (cf. protocols of the 508th
session (par. 12, 78) and 509th session (par. 34)).

So the Observations of Committee clearly suggest to extend the
discriminatory provisions of the Austrian criminal law for gay
adolescents also to lesbian adolescents.

Please write letters of protest to the

COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
United Nations
Palais des Nations
Geneva
Switzerland

And send copies to

NGO-Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child
c/o Defence for Children International
ATT.: Shireen Said
PO Box 88
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Tel.: ++41/22/734 05 58
Fax: ++41/22/740 11 45
e-mail: dci-ngo.group@...

2. Plattform gegen § 209
     Linke Wienzeile 102, A-1060 Vienna
     Tel. & Fax: ++43/1/876 30 61
     e-mail: rk.lambda@...


Comittee on the Rights of the Child
Twentieth Session
Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Article 44 of
the Convention

Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child:
Austria
(CRC/C/15/Add. 98; January 1999)
...

C. Principal Subjects of Concern and Committee Recomendations
...

16. The Committee is concerned about remaining instances of gender
discrimination. The Committee recommends that the State party consider
undertaking an in-depth study relating to ages, sexual consent and
sexual relations, taking into consideration present legislation, its
implications and impact on children in the light of the principles and
provisions of the Convention, with a view to making it as conducive to
the realization of the rights of girls as it may be for boys and giving
due regard to the best interests of the child.
----------------------
National Coalition for the Implementation of the U.N. Convention on the
Rights of the Child
Austria
Final Recommendations
regarding the Initial Report of Austria
****************************************
The National Coalition for the Implementation of the U.N. Convention on
the Rights of the Child appreciating the commitment of the honorable
members of the Committe on the Rights of the Child and  their openness
in taking account the informations and requests submitted by the
National Coalition,
considering that the monitoring process of the Committee is of great
importance to the implementation of the principles and provisions of the
Convention in all countries, apologizing for the inconvenience that we
were not able to provide alternative information to the Austrian
government's answers to the list of
issues, since they were not available to us before yesterday, being
disturbed in some way by the yet unclear position of the Austrian
government if Austria's legal system and policies on the federal as well
as the state levels comply with the Convention or there is still a lot
of work to do to fully implement the Convention in our country, bearing
in mind that some crucial questions that were raised by members of
the Committee at the present session still are waiting for comprehensive
answers by the State Party,
has agreed after dinner yesterday to draw the attention of the honorable
Committee to the following issues and questions, that might be raised by
members of the Committee:
...
2. AGE OF SEXUAL CONSENT WITH SPECIAL REGARD TO HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

Since governmental proposals on this issue did not find a majority in
the Federal Parliament, is the Federal Government considering new
measures to comply with the demands of the Council of Europe and the
European Parliament on the bases of non-discrimination (art. 2 of the
Convention)
and granting an equal age of sexual consent to hetero- as well as
homosexual relationships and furthermore an equal age of consent to male
as well as female homosexual relationships?
...
Salzburg/Vienna/Geneva, January 13th 1999
Paul Arzt
Ombudsperson for Children and Youth Salzburg
Spokesperson of the Delegation of the National Coalition

The full text of the Concluding Observations and of the protocols of the
three sessions of the Committee with the Austrian government can be
found at: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf
(follow: documents -> per country -> Austria -> Convention on the Rights
of the Child)


ANDALUSIA: BLEAK PROSPECTS IN THE SPANISH PARLIAMENT
By Cesar Leston, Fundacion Triangulo

The Asociacion de Identidad de Genero (Gender Identity Association), a
Spanish transsexual organised group, directed to all gay-lesbian,
bisexual, transgender, transsexual groups, as well as human rights
organizations wants to ask for you and ask for your solidarity.

On February, the 11th, the Andalusian Parliament had the representatives
of Identidad de Genero as guests for the discussion of a  motion
introduced by the PSOE (Socialist Party) about transsexual people's
rights, especially the right to sex reassignment surgery at the expense
of the Andalusian Health Service.

The motion was passed with no votes against: the PSOE, Andalusian Party
and United Left (IU) and the abstention of PP (Conservative) pushed up
to this historic victory; a victory that should fill with pride not only
all the GLBTT people in Spain but everyone all over the world that cares
for human rights and human dignity.

This subject has been widely echoed by the media all around Spain and
also in Latin America. It seems not to be a coincidence the fact that
the following March, the 17th, a similar motion - this time brought up
by United Left - will be discussed at the national Parliament in Madrid.

However, the PP position, that gathers there the majority of seats, is
so doubtful, perhaps negative, that we are already expecting the worst
to happen. Therefore, we must desperately need mobilisations and support
- indeed real mobilisation and support - from all  transsexual, gay and
lesbian, transgender, bisexual and human rights organizations in Spain,
Europe and the Americas.

If this proposal does not turn into its passing, transsexual people all
over Spain, except Andalusia, will most likely have to wait several
years yet before obtaining the right to gain their dignity, their only
open door to live, the free sex reasignment surgery as well as a Sex
Changing Law.

If vote in Andalusia has been a victory for all the GLBTT movement in
our country,  we hope that motion in Madrid will be not a defeat. Your
help, your mobilisation, is needed.


NORDIC GAY/LESBIAN STUDENT CONGRESS
By Conny Ohmann

The Gay/Lesbian Students of Uppsala will arrange a Nordic Gay/Lesbian
Student Congress with lectures and workshops, dinner and disco April
17-18.

See further information on this web-site:
http://www.student.uu.se/studorg/fugs/kongress/index.htm


LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX PARTNERSHIPS, A CONFERENCE ON NATIONAL,
EUROPEAN, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Centre of European Law
School of Law, King's College, University of London

Thursday to Saturday, 1 to 3 July, 1999

Confirmed Chairs (as of 25 Feb. 1999) include:

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Slynn of Hadley, Law Lord, House of Lords, UK
Judge Deborah Batts, US District Court, Southern District of New York,
USA
Martin Bowley QC, 36 Bedford Row, London, UK
Mr. Justice Edwin Cameron, High Court, Johannesburg, South Africa
Professor Didi Herman, Keele University, UK
Madame Noelle Lenoir, Membre, Conseil Constitutionnel, France
L'Honorable Juge Claire L'Heureux-Dube, Supreme Court of Canada
Judge Federico Mancini, European Court of Justice, Luxembourg
Professor David Richards, New York University, USA
Dr. Pieter van Dijk, Member, Council of State, Netherlands; Judge of the
European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg (1996-98)

Confirmed Speakers (as of 25 Feb. 1999) include:

Professor Giuseppe Tesauro, President, Italian Competition Authority;
Advocate General, European Court of Justice, Luxembourg (1988-1998)
(Advocate General in P. v. S. & Cornwall County Council, 1996)
Judge Michael Elmer, Vice-President, Maritime and Commercial Courts,
Copenhagen, Denmark; Advocate General, European Court of Justice,
Luxembourg (1994-97) (Advocate General in Grant v. South-West Trains,
1998)
(paper to be introduced by Cherie Booth QC, 4/5 Grays Inn Square,
London, UK)
Peter Duffy QC, Essex Court Chambers, London, UK
Mads Andenes, King's College, University of London, UK
Martha Bailey, Queen's University, Canada
Nicholas Bamforth, Robinson College, University of Cambridge, UK
Mary Bonauto, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Boston, USA
Daniel Borrillo, Universite de Paris X (Nanterre), France
Ruth Busch, University of Waikato, New Zealand
Donald Casswell, University of Victoria, Canada
Andy Chiu, City University of Hong Kong
Matthew Coles, American Civil Liberties Union, New York, USA
Davina Cooper, Keele University, UK
William Eskridge, Yale University, USA
Chai Feldblum, Georgetown University, USA
Leo Flynn, Legal Secretary, European Court of Justice, Luxembourg
Sandra Fredman, Exeter College, University of Oxford, UK
Helmut Graupner, Rechtskomitee Lambda, Vienna, Austria
Aeyal Gross, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Elspeth Guild, University of Nijmegen, Netherlands
Craig Lind, University of Sussex, UK
Janet Halley, Stanford University, USA
Eric Heinze, Queen Mary & Westfield College, University of London, UK
Laurence Helfer, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, USA
Rainer Hiltunen, SETA, Helsinki, Finland
Andrew Koppelman, Northwestern University, USA
Kathleen Lahey, Queen's University, Canada
Arthur Leonard, New York Law School, USA
Andreas Mihalopoulos-Philippopoulos, Birkbeck College, U. of London, UK
Alice Miller, Columbia University, USA
Leslie Moran, Birkbeck College, University of London, UK
Wayne Morgan, University of Melbourne, Australia
Nancy Polikoff, American University, USA
Gioia Scappucci, Coll=E8ge d'Europe, Belgium
Kendall Thomas, Columbia University, USA
Kenji Yoshino, Yale University, USA
Kees Waaldijk, Universities of Leiden and Utrecht, Netherlands
Stephen Whittle, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
Robert Wintemute, King's College, University of London, UK
Evan Wolfson, Lambda Legal Defense, New York, USA
Hans Ytterberg, Ministry of Justice, Sweden

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND A REGISTRATION FORM:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kis/schools/law/research/cel/index.html

or

Administrator
Centre of European Law
School of Law
King's College London, Strand
London  WC2R 2LS, Great Britain
Telephone/Fax:  (44) (171) 873-2387 (changing to 848-2387 from 7 April
1999)
e-mail:  elizabeth.haigh@...




--

Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Tel. +45 3324 6435 or +45 2033 0840  Fax: +45 4049 5297



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/euroletter
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

1EURO-LETTER

No. 67      1  February 1999

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European
Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and
Lesbian International Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National
Association for Gays and Lesbians. Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken
Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen and Soeren Baatrup.  Contact to
Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@... URL: http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033 0840 Mail: c/o
Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V, Denmark
You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and from no 30 onwards the
Euro-Letters are available on the Internet at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html

**********************************

IN THIS ISSUE
ILGA-EUROPE REGRETS EU COURT DECISION IN SAME-SEX PARTNERSHIP CASE
PRESS RELEASE n- 5/99 from the EU COURT
DUTCH LAW REFORM IN PROGRESS
MPs VOTE YES TO GAY EQUALITY (AGAIN!)
GUERNSEY LOWERS AGE OF CONSENT TO 18


Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in
Europe can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm
A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding same-sex
partners can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm
Consolidated versions of the basic treaties of the European Union
including amendments from the Amsterdam Treaty can be found at this
web-site: http://ue.eu.int/Amsterdam/en/traiteco/en1.htm

*************************************

ILGA-EUROPE REGRETS EU COURT DECISION IN SAME-SEX PARTNERSHIP CASE
Press release by ILGA-Europe

A Swedish man, employee of the EU Council of Ministers, married to
another man under the Swedish registered partnership law had asked his
employer to treat him (and his partner) like his married heterosexual
colleagues (and their spouses) under the terms of the EU Staff
Regulations and thus claimed household allowance. The Council refused,
so he brought the case before the Court which rejected his plaint last
Thursday, 28 January 1999.

"We are extremely disappointed", declared Jackie Lewis, co-chair of
ILGA-Europe, the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay
Association, "that the EU Court of First Instance refused to include
registered partners in the definition of 'spouse' for in Sweden,
registered partnership is considered to be the equivalent to marriage
for same-sex couples. To recognise this would only have been logical
because the EU Staff Regulations prohibit both discrimination based on
sex and, since April 1998, explicitly also based on sexual orientation.
The Court, however, refused to apply this provision because the request
for household allowance was made before April 1998!"

"Once more, as in its February 1998 decision in the Lisa Grant case, the
European Court failed to apply the principle of equality and
non-discrimination to a same-sex relationship. The right to respect of
the private and family life has, once more, been denied to same-sex
couples",adds ILGA-Europe board member Alberto Volpato, himself an
employee of an EU institution and member of Égalité, the organisation
for lesbian/gay equality in the European institution. "It is rather
shocking that, 50 years after the Universal Declaration on Human Rights
was signed and at the eve of the entry into force of the Amsterdam
Treaty which, in its article 13, pledges to combat sexual orientation
discrimination, gay and lesbian citizens of the EU are being refused by
the EU Court the fundamental right of being treated like everyone else."

"We hope", says Danish ILGA-Europe board member Steffen Jensen, "that
the Scandinavian member states and the Netherlands and France, which
have or will soon have same-sex partnership legislation, will not
acquiesce in this decision and work for the recognition of the full
rights of registered partners by both the EU institutions and all member
states because the present situation causes severe limits to the freedom

of movement within the EU of gays and lesbians." The Swedish Government
had provided full support to the complaint of the Swedish EU employee
before the European Court.

(PS: The full text of the decision can be found at the following
homepage: http://www.curia.eu.int)


PRESS RELEASE n- 5/99 from the EU COURT
28 January 1999
Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-264/97
(http://europa.eu.int/cj/en/cp/cp9905en.htm)

D v Council

A Community official living with a partner of the same sex is not
entitled to the household allowance

The Court of First Instance has confirmed a Council decision and refused
to assimilate stable relationships between two persons of the same sex
to relationships between married persons A Community official of Swedish
nationality claimed from his employer, the Council, the household
allowance provided for by the Staff Regulations for Community Officials,
requesting that the Council assimilate his partnership with a person of
the same sex, which was duly registered by the Swedish authorities, to
marriage.

Since 1995 it has been possible for two persons of the same sex to have
their partnership registered by the Swedish authorities, which attach
legal consequences thereto largely identical to those of marriage.

The Council refused to assimilate the registered partnership to marriage
for the purposes of the Staff Regulations and dismissed the applicant's
request.

The Swedish official challenged the Council's refusal before the Court
of First Instance.

The Court of First Instance considered the legality of the Council's
refusal, as a matter of law, in the light of the provisions applicable
at the time of the request, that is to say, 1996.

The Court endorsed the Council's approach, stating that the latter was
under no duty to refer to the laws of the Member States (in this case,
Swedish law) in interpreting and applying the Staff Regulations for
Officials, in particular as regards the consequences for a person living
with a partner of the same sex. It emphasized that the regulations
governing the Community civil service refer exclusively to civil
marriage, in the traditional sense of the term.

Community law does not as yet assimilate stable relationships between
two persons of the same sex to relationships between married persons.

Consequently, the Council was not obliged to extend the household
allowance to an official living with a partner of the same sex under a
status recognized by Swedish law.

Although the Staff Regulations for Officials were amended in 1998 so as
to ensure equal treatment without reference to sexual orientation, it is
for the Council to adopt, if necessary, the necessary amendments to take
into account such situations.

NB: an appeal, limited to questions of law, may be brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities against that decision of
the Court of First Instance within two months of its notification.

This press release is an unofficial document for media use which does
not bind the Court of First Instance. It is available in English,
Danish, Finnish, French, German and Swedish.
.

DUTCH LAW REFORM IN PROGRESS
(adoption, marriage, foreign partners, age of consent)
by Kees Waaldijk (law lecturer University of Leiden)

Adoption and marriage
On 13 November 1998 the Dutch Cabinet approved a Bill to allow adoption
by same-sex partners. And on 11 December 1998 the Dutch Cabinet approved
a Bill to allow same-sex couples to marry.

The text of the Bills has not been made public. They are first being
sent to the Council of State, for advice. The influential but
non-binding advices of the Council of State can be expected around
February 1999. Depending on the content of the advices, it will take the
government then several weeks before it could present the Bills to
Parliament. Only then they will become public. With the Bills the
liberal/socialist/democrat coalition government will only be a few
months late in honouring its commitments contained in the governmental
programme of July 1998 (see
http://www.xs4all.nl/~nvihcoc/marriage.html).

The parliamentary procedure to approve the Bills will probably take at
least a year. In the Lower House of Parliament there is a clear majority
in favour of same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption. The position in
the Senate is less clear, but normally they follow the political lead of
the Lower House.

The Cabinet's press release of 11 December 1998 reveals some details of
the Marriage Bill. Registered partnership (available to same-sex and
different-sex couples since 1 January 1998) will not be abolished by the
Bill. For at least five years it will exist alongside same-sex and
different-sex marriage. For couples who have registered their
partnership already (4000 couples did in the first ten months of the
year, including 1500 between men, and 1200 between women), it will be
made possible to convert it into full marriage.

The only legal difference between same-sex marriage and different-sex
marriage mentioned in the press release relates to paternity: the female
spouse of a married woman who bears a child will not be deemed to be the
'father' of the child (whereas her male spouse would be 'father', even
in the absence on any biological link between him and the child).
However, it will normally be possible for the female spouse to adopt the
child.

According to the Cabinet's press release of 13 November 1998 adoption by
same-sex partners will become possible irrespective of their being
married or registered as partners. Intercountry adoptions are excluded
from the Bill. (On 1 October 1998 the Hague Adoption Convention entered
into force in the Netherlands; it only allows intercountry adoptions by
two persons who are married, or by one person, whether single or in a
relationship.)

Under the terms of the Adoption Bill, same-sex couples wishing to adopt
a child must meet the same criteria as different-sex couples. A new
strict condition, applicable to all adoptions, is being introduced: all
possibility of the child being cared for by its original parent(s) must
have disappeared.

Foreign partners
The State Secretary for Justice, Job Cohen, has also announced some
improvements for the position of foreign partners.

Under the present law it is somewhat easier to marry a foreign partner
than to register a partnership with a foreigner. For partnership
registration both partners need to have either Dutch nationality or a
'valid residence entitlement'. For marriage it is enough that only one
of the two partners is a Dutch national or a legal resident. In a letter
to Parliament of 2 November 1998 the State Secretary announced a Bill
which would make the condition that now applies to marriage equally
applicable to partnership registration. This Bill (still to be drafted)
would also contain other minor improvements in family law.

Until that Bill (or the Marriage Bill) becomes law, foreign same-sex
partners can still fall victim of the inequality between married and
unmarried partners in the immigration rules: the income requirements for
legal residents of the Netherlands who want to be joined by their
foreign partner are higher in the case of unmarried partners than in the
case of marriage. However, on 30 September 1998 the State Secretary has
amended the Immigration Rules slightly: the higher income will no longer
be required in cases where the resident of the Netherlands is older than
571/2 years or permanently and fully incapacitated (whose social
security benefits would normally be insufficient to meet the
requirement). The same amendment to the Immigration Rules confirms that
registered partners will be treated in the same way as married partners.

Age of consent
Under existing Dutch penal law it is a criminal offence to have sex with
someone under the age of 16. However, if the other person is 12 years or
older, a prosecution can only take place if there is a formal complaint
by or on behalf of the youngster by his or her parents or the Child Care
and Protection Board. (This explains why sometimes it is claimed that
the Netherlands have 'an age of consent of 12'). Now research
commissioned by the Ministry of Justice has suggested that the complaint
requirement sometimes forms an obstacle to prosecution in cases of
abuse. In response the Cabinet Minster for Justice, Benk Korthals, has
hinted on 30 November 1998 that he might prepare the abolition of the
complaint requirement.


MPs VOTE YES TO GAY EQUALITY (AGAIN!)
Press release from STONEWALL

Tony Blair tonight led a 183-strong cross-party majority of MPs in
voting for an equal age of consent for gay men, in the second vote on
this issue in seven months. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill passed
its second reading tonight with very little opposition from MPs. Most of
those who voiced concerns last June were now satisfied that this Bill
provided for both equal treatment and equal protection of young people.

The gay and lesbian lobby group, Stonewall, celebrated this success as a
prelude to an even bigger majority when the Bill returns to the Commons
for its third reading next month before consideration by peers.

Last July the House of Lords rejected proposals to equalise the age of
consent. At that time, the Home Secretary pledged to use the Parliament
Act to push the measure through the upper House if peers voted against
the will of the elected House of Commons again.

Angela Mason, Stonewall's Executive Director, tonight said:

"We are thrilled that, after a long and reasoned debate, MPs have voted
for the principle of equality, yet again.

"This vote signifies the great will that exists to welcome young gay men
into society.

"The majority of MPs realise that this Bill provides for equal treatment
and equal protection for all young people.  The objections raised by the
Lords last July have been dealt with."

For more information please call Mark Watson on 0961 415605 or 0171 336
8860


GUERNSEY LOWERS AGE OF CONSENT TO 18
By Matt Aston, STONEWALL

The Guernsey Parliament has lowered the self-governing island's age of
consent for gay sex. The age (previously 21) was lowered to 18, but
remains unequal to the heterosexual age of consent of 16.

The amendment to lower the age to 18 was passed by 30 votes to 24 - a
narrow majority of 6.


--

Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Tel. +45 3324 6435 or +45 2033 0840  Fax: +45 4049 5297



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/euroletter
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

EURO-LETTER

No. 66    December 1998

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The European
Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association by Gay and
Lesbian International Lobby in co-operation with The Danish National
Association for Gays and Lesbians. Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken
Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen and Soeren Baatrup.  Contact to
Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@... URL: http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033 0840 Mail: c/o
Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V, Denmark
You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to
euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com  and from no 30 onwards the
Euro-Letters are available on the Internet at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html

************
IN THIS ISSUE
NEW EU DIRECTIVES ON ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROMISED
EU COMMISSION PROPOSES PROHIBITION OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REAFFIRMS GAY AND LESBIAN RIGHTS AS HUMAN RIGHTS
THE PRESENT SITUATION OF PARTNERSHIP REGULATIONS IN BELGIUM
SLOVENIA BANS WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION
FRENCH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OKs PARTNER BILL
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE REQUESTS AUSTRIA TO REPEAL ARTICLE
209
UK, GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
**************

Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's homepage

http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm
An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and Lesbians in
Europe can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm
A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding same-sex
partners can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm
Consolidated versions of the basic treaties of the European Union
including amendments from the Amsterdam Treaty can be found at this
web-site:
http://ue.eu.int/Amsterdam/en/traiteco/en1.htm


NEW EU DIRECTIVES ON ANTI-DISCRIMI-NATION PROMISED
by Mark Bell and Kurt Krickler.

'Anti-discrimination: the way forward' was the title for a conference
organised by DGV of the European Commission, held in Vienna, 3-4
December. Several delegates from various lesbian/gay organisations at-
tended and sexual orientation discrimination was raised in all of the
conference's workshops and in the final plenary. The main focus of
discussion was how to proceed with the implementation of the new Article
13 in the EC Treaty which allows the EU to 'take appropriate action to
combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation'. The breadth of the
expression 'appropriate action' allows for a wide range of implementing
measures, from non-binding recommendations and action plans, to binding
legislation creating new individual rights to non-discrimination.

Discussion revealed divisions within and between all the groups
mentioned in Article 13 as to the best means to proceed. On the one
hand, certain delegates felt that the specific needs of each group could
not be incorporated in common measures and it would be better to
introduce separate measures. On the other, many individuals expressed
concerns that separate provision for each group would inevitably lead to
unequal levels of protection. In this regard, an inno-vative suggestion
was the idea for a declaration from the Commission (and possibly the
other institutions) expressing a commitment that all grounds of
discri-mination included in Article 13 would receive equal priority.

The response of the Commission tries to build a compromise between these
two perspectives. Com- missioner Flynn announced a "package" of mainly
three things:

1. A framework directive as a general basis including all grounds of
discrimination mentioned in Article 13 but only for the area of
employment (being the main guarantee for social inclusion).

2. Directive on  racial discrimination to cover also other areas such an
social insurance, health, education, sports (but this is nothing new -
that was already promised in the Commission's Action Plan against
Racism, as you know - see Mark Bell's contribution in The 1998
ILGA-Europe report, Equality for lesbians and gay men).

3. Action programmes (together with the member states and the civil
society) - building partnership and knowledge; new community
initiatives, especially in the structural funds.

It may also be interesting what Odile Quintin said in her statement (she
is the deputy acting director gene-ral of DG V) - it was a little
cautious - but maybe it's just a realistic view. She stressed the "soft"
tools such as programmes, good practice, referred to the experience of
the women, also stressed subsidiarity, proportionality, flexibility and
respect of the culture of the member states (which does not sound really
promising in this context). She also stressed the diversity of
situations and only mentioned women, race and disability.

Nonetheless, the package of measures announced by Commissioner Flynn
represents a truly ambitious programme of law reform and, if achieved,
would mark a considerable extension in European anti-dis-crimination
law. The requirement of unanimity in the Council of Ministers though
ensures that no-one should underestimate the great difficulties which
will be experienced in translating these proposals into legislation.
Whilst there will be understandable disappointment amongst lesbians and
gay men (and other groups) that they have not been accorded the same
priority as persons vulnerable to racial discrimina-tion, the proposal
for a general directive on employment discrimination is a good
foundation for future lobbying.

In particular, ILGA-Europe and its supporters in the Member States will
need to clarify exactly what they want from new legislation on
employment discrimination. For example, the Lisa Grant case together
with the long-standing work of EGALITE highlight the need for protection
against employment discrimination to extend to recognition by employers
of same-sex partners. As the recent changes to the EC Staff Regulations
demonstrate, it is quite possible for anti-discrimination laws to still
leave the issue of partners' rights unaddressed.

More generally, ILGA-Europe needs to consider how it will approach the
directive proposed on racial dis- crimination. Should lesbians and gay
men (together with other groups?) seek to persuade the Commission to
also include them within this proposal, or should they accept the
parameters of the debate as set by the Commission and instead focus on
producing concrete proposals for an alternative directive specifically
dealing with sexual orientation discrimination? Arguably, whichever
approach is adopted, it will be more effective if it is one shared and
supported by the other groups included in Article 13. The joint work of
the European Parliament InterGroups provides a good model for such
cooperation, and continued dialogue seems the best basis on which to
proceed.


EU COMMISSION PROPOSES PROHIBITION OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION
By Philipp Raether

On July 22, 1998 the Commission of the European Communities proposed
several amendments to the Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on the
free-dom of movement for workers within the European Community. The
proposal's document number is: COM(1998) 394 final.

One of the amendments is to insert the new article 1a to the Regulation.
The text of the proposed article 1a is:

"Within the scope of this Regulation, all discrimination on grounds of
sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion, belief, disability, age or
sexual orientation shall be prohibited."

The Commission explains the proposal of the new article as followed:
"Europe's cultural, social, religious and ethnic diversity suggests that
the protection currently offered against nationality-based
discrimination is not enough to allow effective freedom of movement.
(...) This new article is also to be seen as a contribution to the
development of Community law, which will con- tain, when the Treaty of
Amsterdam enters into force, a new clause on non-discrimination (Article
13)."

But the new article 13 of the Europan Union Treaty will not outlaw
discrimination, it will only empower the EU introduce measures to
prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex, age, disability, sexual
orientation etc. And it is questionable if non-discimination measures
will ever be introduced. Consequently the new proposed article 1a of the
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on the freedom of movement for
workers within the European Community is a relati-vely big step.

The proposed article will outlaw discrimination of workers who left
their EU member state in order to work in another EU member state on the
grounds of sexual orientation etc.

Unfortunately it is uncertain if the amendments will ever become law
because the European Parliament and the Council will have to pass the
amendments (they are the law-makers). In the past the Council, which
consists of the members are the governments of the member states, did
not except amendments of this paticular regulation because it did not
want to extend the freedom of movement for workers and their families.
Also according to the new proposals more family members (the age limit
of descendents who have a right of residence will be abolished) will be
entitled to come and stay in the other member state where the worker
moved to, so one may fear that the Council will be reluctant to pass
these amendments. But it is to hope that the amendments will become law.



EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REAFFIRMS GAY AND LESBIAN RIGHTS AS HUMAN RIGHTS
ILGA-Europe Press release

On 17 December 1998, the European Parliament adopted its report and
resolution on respect for human rights in the European Union for the
year 1997.

The report was drafted by conservative French MEP Anne-Marie Schaffner.
Her draft resolution made only one minor reference to gay and lesbian
issues recalling that no one should suffer as a result of belonging,
inter alia, to a sexual minority.

Before the draft report was debated in the EP Committee on Civil
Liberties and Internal Affairs on 24 November, ILGA-Europe wrote to MEPs
of various political groups and proposed some amendments to be tabled.
The Green group and the European Radical Alliance did so, and some of
the proposed amendments were already adopted in the Committee, for
instance confirming that the EP would not accept new members which do
not respect the human rights of homosexuals, or welcoming the fact that
some member states have adopted legal provisions for non-traditional
partnerships, and calling on member states to equalise their age of
consent provisions for all sexual orientations. But a series of other
amendments failed in the Committee.

ILGA-Europe considered this still to be rather behind the texts voted in
previous annual human rights reports and, therefore, wrote again to
various MEPs to ask them to retable the proposed amendments for the
plenary session. Various political groups, including the European United
Left/Nordic Green Left, also tabled their own amendments. Finally, the
plenary adopted an amendent which explicitly named those member states
which have not yet equalised their age of consent provisions, e.g.
Austria, Greece, Portugal and the United Kingdom - which was one of
ILGA-Europe's proposal - and called on them to repeal these.

More information is available from:
Kurt Krickler, Co-chair of ILGA-Europe, phone/fax: +43-1-545 13 10;
email: ieboard@...


Here the full text of the gay and lesbian relevant items of the
'Resolution on respect for human rights in the European Union (1997)',
adopted on 17 December 1998, Doc. A4-0468/98:

The European Parliament,

10. Stresses that European Union accession is out of the question for
states which do not respect fundamental human rights, and calls on the
Commission and Council to lay particular stress on the rights of
minorities (ethnic, linguistic, religious, homosexual etc.) at the time
of enlargement negotiations;

51. Welcomes the fact that the draft Treaty of Amsterdam includes
provisions (Articles 12 and 13) making it possible to combat all forms
of discrimination based on sex, race, nationality, ethnic origin, age,
religion or belief, or sexual orientation;

52. Welcomes the fact that certain Member States, alongside their
legislation on civil or religious marriage, have introduced legislative
provisions for relationships between individuals who wish to establish a
personal link recognised in law;

53. Calls on those Member States which have not yet done so to eliminate
all discrimination against homosexuals; calls on Austria, Greece,
Portugal and the United Kingdom in particular to abolish the difference
in the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals;

54. Calls once again for the elimination of all unfair treatment of
homosexuals and lesbians, particularly as regards the age of consent,
civil rights, the right to work, social and economic rights, etc.;

73. Recalls that no one should be subject to prejudice or discrimination
as a result of belonging to a national, linguistic, religious or ethnic
minority, or because of his or her sex, or because of his or her
political, religious or philosophical opinions or sexual orientation,
provided that the latter neither involve nor encourage violations of
human rights, and of the rights of women and children in particular;

82. Asks that the specific situation of certain groups of particularly
vulnerable prisoners be taken into account, namely minors, women,
immigrants, ethnic minorities, homosexuals and persons suffering from
illnesses; urges the Member States to adopt measures to ensure that
these prisoners receive individual treatment, taking each of their
special situations into account;

(The full text of the Resolution can be found on the website of the
European Parliament: http://www.europarl.eu.int)


THE PRESENT SITUATION OF PARTNERSHIP REGULATIONS IN BELGIUM
by Anke Hintjens (Federatie Werkgroepen Homosexualiteit, Gent, Belgium),
translated by Alan Rieke

Summary
At present, nothing for GLB people has so far been fundamentally settled
in Belgium. A few half-easures have indeed already been adopted, and a
lot of pro- posals are under discussion. Here is an attempt to provide
an overview.

A lot of people think that much has already been decided because they
saw Tom Lanoye and his part-ner get "married" at the Antwerp Town Hall.
What actually occurred on that occasion was a celebration organised
around the offical registration of a contact that both partners had
signed in the presence of a Notary Public. In this way, each partner's
obligations with respect to the other can be formally established. How
much of the household expenditure each of them is committed to bearing,
who owns what property, who is liable to pay how much, if anything, to
the other partner if (s)he decides to put an end to the relationship.But
such a contract does not give rise to any obligations with respect to
third parties (eg their family, employer, or the public authorities).

Since October 1996, every municipality is obliged, at the request of any
resident, to record in its Register of Inhabitants that (s)he is bound
by such a contract of co-habitation. This obligation was adopted with a
view to further developments in this context. How- ever, so far this
registration has no impact. In some municipalities, like Antwerp,
registration can also be accompanied by a suitable ceremony in the Town
Hall. Other municipalities (like Leuven) explicitly forbid such a
ceremony.

At the end of October 1998, the Belgian Parliament approved the text of
a Bill intended to create the pro- visions for "statutory cohabitation".
The Cabinet has not yet decided when this law should come into force,
because this depends on the tax rates for married couples being reduced.

People can get themselves registered as 'co-habiting' by their local
authority's Registrar, and they will then be covered by the law when it
comes into effect. The law settles a certain number of questions, most
of which arise when the partnership is terminated. For example, one
partner cannot simply kick the other out of their home when the
partnership breaks down. Property that cannot clearly be shown to belong
to one of the partners is deemed (for tax purposes) to be jointly ow-
ned, just as when one of them dies after making a will in favour of the
other.

Co-habitants are jointly responsible for contributing to the household
living expenses of living together, in proportion to their abilities,
and are also principally responsible for any debts incurred in this
context, including those for any children that they are bringing up.

This law goes as far as possible in the eyes of conservatives who have
been opposed to any sort of advantage for co-habitants. It amounts to
granting them a legal status, which can be regarded as a victory. On the
other hand, in practice it provides them with very little more than
symbolic benefits.

Inheritance taxes
If your partner leaves you a share of his estate as his or her
registered co-habitant, inheritance tax is payable at a lower rate than
would otherwise be the case. Indeed, in Flanders (but not in Brussels or
Wallonia), there have been separate rates of inheritance taxes for
registered co-habitants since January 1998. Previously, you were
considered to be unre-lated to your late partner, and tax would have to
be paid at between 45 and 65% on what-ever bequest you received.
Nowdays, the rates applicable to a co-habiting partner are between 10
and 50%. A considerable improvement, but still not complete equality
with the situation of a married couple, where the widow(er) is liable to
pay tax at a rate of between 3 and 27%. For those GLB people who still
cannot marry their partner, this still amounts to discrimination.

Income tax
This brings us to the matter of income tax. This is quite a substantial
tax, and the rate at which it is currently payable depends on whether
one is married or not. In some cases this is advantageous, in others it
is not. Where both husband and wife have incomes, they pay more tax than
if they were unmarried. But if either of them is unemployed and is
economically dependent on his or her partner, the latter is entitled to
pay less tax than would otherwise be the case. And unmarried partners,
such as same-sex couples, cannot take advantage of this provision. The
fact that tax law treats the members of such couples as being un-
related can in some cases result in serious problems. For example, in a
case where one partner was self-employed and declared an income of 20
thousand francs a month after deducting the household expenses while he
was living together with a friend, three years later he had to pay the
tax authorities a fine of 85 thousand francs per year for each year
because they considered that he had made a false declaration.

The income tax provisions are at least consistent, but unfair. Those
concerning Social Security are not even consistent. In some cases
co-habitation is recognised; in others it is disregarded. And sometimes
they even differentiate between unmarried couples of the same or
opposite sexes.

And where an employee has a co-habiting partner, his or her employer
does not have to take that into account in cases where his or her spouse
would be (eg in granting leave, private medical insurance,
life-assurance or reimbursement of travel costs). However, there are no
legal barriers preventing an employer from doing so.

Parental rights
There are currently no legal provisions applicable to GLB couples who
are jointly bringing up children. The Bill on statutory co-habitation
now deals with the joint responsability for the cost of the education.
The second parent thus has no rights, only duties. For all issues
relating the education of the children (school, inheritance,
decisions,...) the second partner is still not recognised."

Non-EU Partners
If you are (un)lucky enough to have somebody who comes from oustide the
European Union as your partner, then since November 1997 you have been
able to obtain a resi-dence permit for your partner. You have to be able
to show that the relationship exists, that you have an income of at
least 35 thou-sand francs (about $US 1000) per month, and that you
guarantee (s)he will not be a burden on public funds. You have to
produce a large number of official documents - conditions that don't
apply to married couples. A number of same-sex couples have already
obtained permission to live together in Belgium on this basis.

But this permission depends on the relationship - if it comes to an end
within the first three years, then the partner from outside the EU loses
his or her right to live in Belgium. And even while (s)he has the right
to live in Belgium on this basis, which was introduced by the former
Minister Vande Lanotte, (s)he is not allowed to take up employment. The
FWH is trying to persuade the Ministry of Employment to correct this
unsatisfactory system as quickly as possible. A solu-tion is apparently
in prospect.

A good definitive regulation?
The FWH considers that real equality requires that the institution of
marriage should be opened to same-sex couples, and that those people who
don't want to get married should have the possibility of settling
certain matters through a recognised status of statutory cohabitation.
This status would be open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

At present, it appears politically difficult to achieve both these
solutions. What is currently proposed is the "Statutory co-habitation"
Bill. This is a draft law that would create a separate legal status for
same-sex couples. It would entitle those couples who acquired this
status to enjoy most of the advantages of marriage except for those
concer-ning parenting and adoption. Not really very much to ask, but
[appa-rently] too much for the conservatives in this country.


SLOVENIA BANS WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION
By Rex Wockner

Slovenia banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in the
workplace Oct. 24.

Article 6 of the Law On Work Relations now reads: "An employer may not
put an employment-seeker in an unequal position because of his/her race,
skin color, gender, age, medical condition, religious, political or
other belief, membership in a union, national or social origin, family
status, wealth status, sexual orientation or other personal
circumstance."


FRENCH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OKs PARTNER BILL
By Rex Wockner

France's National Assembly passed a partnership-registration measure
Dec. 9 that grants unmarried couples -- gay and straight, romantic or
not -- spousal rights in areas such as inheritance, housing, taxation,
workplace benefits, social security and social-welfare programs.

The vote was 316-249. The proposal will move to the Senate next spring
then return to the lower house before predicted enactment in late 1999.

The bill was controversial from its inception and consumed over 70 hours
of Assembly floor time as conservatives tried every approach imaginable
to derail it. They were ultimately doomed to failure, however, since the
measure is supported by Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's ruling Socialist
Party, which holds 320 of the Assembly's 577 seats, and by the
Communists and the Greens.


UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE REQUESTS AUSTRIA TO REPEAL ARTICLE
209
by Kurt Krickler, HOSI Wien

On 30 October 1998, the UN Human Rights Committee considered Austria's
3rd periodical report (according to Article 40 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) on the progress made in
garantueeing full human rights and implementing the ICCPR. In the
debates, the representatives of the Austrian government were also
questioned on the discriminatory age of consent provision in the penal
code (Article 209) by some of the committee members. In September 1998,
HOSI Wien had submitted an "alternative" report to the Committee in
Geneva providing information on the human rights violations against gay
men in Austia.

On 5 November 1998, the Committee adopted its concluding observations
(published on 11 November), and the discrimination against homosexuals
was mentioned as one of thirteen "prinicipal subjects of concern and
recommendations": "The Committee considers that existing legislation on
the minimum age of consent for sexual relations in respect of male
homosexuals is discriminatory on grounds of sex and sexual orientation.
It requests that the law be revised to remove such discriminatory
provisions." (para.13)

PS: General remark: These periodic reports which UN member states have
to submit to the UNHR Committee on a periodic basis according to Article
40 of the ICCPR are a useful opportunity to denounce human rights
violations against gays, lesbians and transgenders in countries where
such violations occur. The dates for the submission of reports and the
full texts of reports of individual countries can be found on the United
Nations Human Rights website: www.unhchr.ch


UK, GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
Corrections to EuroLetters 61 and 62

Thanks to P A MagLochlainn from NIGRA we have been aware of two mistakes
in previous EuroLetters:

In Euroletter No 61, the Stonewall report FIRST STEP TO EQUALISE AGE ON
CONSENT IN UK, paragraph 1, has "homosexual sex at 16".  This should of
course read "homosexual sex at 16 in Great Britain, and at 17 in
Northern Ireland."

This mistake is repeated in Euroletter No 62, Rex Wockner's article
HOUSE OF LORDS STALLS AGE-OF-CONSENT CHANGE, paragraph 1 - and should be
amended accordingly.

It also occurs in the same Euroletter, in the article UK GOVERNMENT
PROMISES GAY RIGHTS REFORM NEXT YEAR, paragraph 1 - and should again be
amended as above.

The exact situation is that the age of consent for straight people is 17
in the kingdom of Northern Ireland, whereas in the other three countries
of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland and Wales) it is 16. When the
whole United Kingdom achieves equality with heterosexuals, therefore,
Northern Ireland will have equality at age 17, whereas Great Britain
will have equality at 16.

********************************************

Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Tel. +45 3324 6435 or +45 2033 0840  Fax: +45 4049 5297




------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/euroletter
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

EURO-LETTER

No. 65 			 November 1998

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The
European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association
by Gay and Lesbian International Lobby in co-operation with The
Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians.
Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen and
Soeren Baatrup.

Contact to Euro-Letter:
E-mail:steff@...
URL: http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033 0840
Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V, Denmark
You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty
message to  euroletter-subscribe@egroups.com
and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters are available on the Internet at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html

******************************************

IN THIS ISSUE

FIRST BREAK-THROUGH FOR LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUALS IN
GERMANY

DUTCH CABINET OKS GAY ADOPTION

DECRIMINALISATION IN BELARUS CONFIRMED

CHANGES IN THE LATVIAN CONSTITUION

EUROPEAN UNION LAUNCHES ITS HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA FOR THE YEAR 2000

WILL HUMAN RIGHTS BE IGNORED IN ELECTION FOR EUROPE'S TOP HUMAN
RIGHTS JOB?

UPDATE ON AUSTRIA

COURT CONDEMNS DUTCH MP FOR OFFENDING HOMOSEXUALS





Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's
homepage http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm

An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and
Lesbians in Europe can be found at

http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm

A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding
same-sex partners can be found at

http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm

Consolidated versions of the basic treaties of the European
Union including amendments from the Amsterdam Treaty can be
found at this web-site:
http://ue.eu.int/Amsterdam/en/traiteco/en1.htm

***********************************************

FIRST BREAK-THROUGH FOR LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GERMANY

Press Release by Volker Beck (Member of the Federal Parliament
of Germany; spokesperson for legal affairs, League'90 / The
Greens) (Translated by Dorian Haseloff)

The advent of the red-green government brings a clear change in
policies for gay men and lesbians. The "promotion of tolerance,
the respect for mino- rities and the strengthening of their
rights" is laid down in the coalition contract as one of the
objectives of the new Federal Government in Germany.

In the field of interior and legal policy it was agreed:

"The new Federal Government will protect minorities and work to
achieve their equal treatment and full social participation.
Nobody should be discriminated against on account of his/her
disability, origin, colour, ethnic affiliation or sexual
orientation as a gay man or a lesbian. To this end, we will
initiate a law against discrimination and for the promotion of
equal treatment (among other things with the introduction of a
legal institution of the "Registered Partnership" with rights
and obligations). The recommendations of the European Parliament
on the equal rights of les- bians and gay men will be consulted."

Tough negotiations were held on this issue. The
Social-Democratic Party was originally unwilling to deal with
the question of gay and lesbian partnership in the coalition
contract. In this case, League'90 / The Greens were able to push
this through.

It is important to stress that the coalition contract says in
the case of "Registered Partnership", no legal rights are
excluded. Thus statements by Social- Democratic politicians that
homosexual couples will, for instance, not be recognised for the
purpose of taxation, are not in accordance with the text of the
coalition contract.

League'90 / The Greens will insist strongly that the same rights
be granted to gay and lesbian couples as to married couples.

The work has not come to an end for us. Gay and lesbian groups
and associations will have to continue to fight to achieve true
equality until the Federal Parliament passes the law on
registered partnership.

We shall only achieve this only with united efforts.

With the planned anti-discrimination law, Germany will keep pace
with developments in Europe. This gives the clear signal that
gay men and lesbians should no longer be second-class citizens.



DUTCH CABINET OKS GAY ADOPTION
By WILLIAM J. KOLE (AP)

The Dutch Cabinet has approved a plan to let homo- sexuals adopt
children, accelerating a push to expand gay rights in the
country in time for the new mille- nnium.

The legislation, approved late Friday by top ministers of Prime
Minister Wim Kok's coalition government, would restrict
adoptions to Dutch children. It will go before parliament,
probably early next year, in a drive to have it become law by
Jan. 1, 2000.

Under the proposal, gays and lesbians would not be allowed to
adopt children from abroad out of respect for other countries'
laws, and out of concern that international adoption agencies
would stop approving adoptions to all Dutch couples,
heterosexuals included.

The plan would limit the right to adopt to homo- sexual couples
who have lived together for at least three years and who have
cared for the child for a full year. It would not require a
couple to marry or legally register their partnership.

Prospective gay parents would have to demonstrate in court that
the child they wish to adopt would be better off with them, Kok
said.

The legislation, said to have broad backing in parlia- ment,
revives a push that began several years ago to further expand
the rights granted to homosexuals under Dutch law.

A new law took effect on Jan. 1 permitting same-sex couples to
marry and giving them the same pension, social security and
inheritance rights as married heterosexual couples.

There was no discernible protest over Friday's Cabi- net
approval in the liberal Netherlands, which is among the few
countries to allow same-sex marriage and has welcomed
homosexuals to serve openly in the military since the 1970s.

Recent public opinion surveys have shown that seven in 10 Dutch
people think homosexuals could make good parents.

In the past, however, Roman Catholic leaders in the Netherlands
have been among those opposed to homosexual adoption on moral
and biblical grounds.

Denmark, Norway, and Sweden also legally recognize gay
partnerships but have not allowed them to adopt. Some U.S.
states allow homosexual adoption and a few forbid it.

Germany's new center-left government indicated this week that it
intends to grant some sort of legal status to same-sex couples,
but not an outright "gay mar- riage'' and not the right to adopt
children.

In France, a bill aimed at giving legal status to unmarried
couples has triggered fierce debate and street protests amid
fears among conservatives that it could legalize homosexual
marriage and lead to gay adoption.



DECRIMINALISATION IN BELARUS CONFIRMED
by Kurt Krickler, HOSI Wien

In Euro-Letter # 57 (February 1998), doubts were expressed about
whether decriminalisation of the total ban on homosexuality had
taken place in Belarus (Art. 119-1 of the Belarusan penal code)
as reported in Euro-Letter # 55.

These doubts were unfounded as it was clear from various sources
that a reform must have taken place between April 1993 (ILGA
Eastern Europe confe- rence in Vienna) and July 1996 (AIDS
conference in Vancouver). The recently founded "Belarus League
for Freedom of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals - Belarus Lambda League
(BLL)" has now confirmed that decriminalisation happened on 1
March 1994.

BLL, by the way, is interested in getting in contact with groups
in other countries and getting material from abroad. Please,
write to BLL, P.O.Box 23, BY-220006 Minsk, Belarus.



CHANGES IN THE LATVIAN CONSTITUION
By Juris Ludvigs Lavrikovs

On 15 October 1998 the Saeima (Latvian Parliament) adopted and
the President of the Republic announced the law "On Amendments
to the Satversme (Constitu- tion) of the Republic of Latvia
("Latvian Herald", Nr.308/312, October 23, 1998).  Under this
law the 1922 Satversme, which was reintroduced after the
regaining of independence from the Soviet Union, is amended by
the addition of a new Section 8 "Basic Human Rights".

In 1922 the Satversmes sapulce (Constituent Assem- bly) could
not agree on this section, which laid down fundamental freedoms
and rights, for political reasons. Therefore until recently
Latvia was almost the only country in Europe whose constitution
did not contain any provisions on human rights.

In 1991 so-called constitutional law "On the Rights and Duties
of the Citizen and the Individual" was adopted. Article 12 of
this law contained a list of grounds on the basis of which
discrimination was prohibited. Sexual orientation was not
included. Also this was a "closed-end" list, that is, it
contained no formula such as "other (comparable) grounds" which
may have allowed the article to be interpreted as covering
sexual orientation. Another problem with this law was that the
Latvian legal system does not recognise laws of this category as
constitutional.

Recent constitutional reform not only provides for
constitutional protection of human rights in Latvia but also
opens up the possibility of interpreting of the Satversme as
protecting individuals from discrimi- nation based on their
sexual orientation. Under the law "On Amendments to the
Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia" the 1991
constitutional law "On the Rights and Duties of the Citizen and
the Individual" is loses its force and the new Section 8 of the
Satversme is introduced. According to new Article 91 of the
Satversme "all people in Latvia are equal before the law and the
courts. Human rights shall be exercised without any
discrimination". Thus the article does not contain a list of
grounds on the basis of which discrimination is prohibited, but
simply states that "any discrimination is prohibited."

Although theoretically it seems that Article 91 provides
protection from discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation,
it is up to the future case law or official explanation to
clarify whether this is the case.



EUROPEAN UNION LAUNCHES ITS HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA FOR THE YEAR 2000
By ILGA-Europe

Comite des Sages recommends that sexual orientation
discrimination be more systematically addressed through a
European Commission action plan and the development of a draft
directive on equal treatment.

At a conference in Vienna 9-10 October 1998, the human rights
agenda for the EU for the year 2000 was launched and debated by
high-level experts and officials, including from the European
Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Europe.
This agenda is the result of the European Commis- sion sponsored
project "A human rights agenda for the European Union for the
Year 2000" carried out by an expert team led by Professor Philip
Alston, head of the Department of Law at the European University Institute in
Florence. This project is marking the 50th anniversary of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be celebrated in
December 1998 and is intended to formulate a comprehensive
future human rights policy for the EU. Based on the extensive
Final Project Report prepared by this expert team, a Comite des
Sages has elaborated the human rights agenda for the EU for the
year 2000. The Comite des Sages consisted of Antonio Cassesse,
President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia, Catherine Lalumiere, member of the European
Parliament and former Secretary-General of the Council of
Europe, Peter Leuprecht, former Deputy Secretary-General of the
Council of Europe, and Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights.

Both the final project report and the agenda have now been
published and both refer to human rights of lesbians and gays.
The conclusion and recommen- dation of the expert team that
"Discrimination based on sexual orientation continues to be
widespread and should be more systematically addressed through a
Commission action plan and the development of a draft directive
on equal treatment" (paragraph 208 of the Final Project Report)
was included in full text in the agenda of the Comite des Sages
(paragraph 12).

"This reference is, after Article 13 TEC as amended by the
Treaty of Amsterdam, another clear and strong commitment and
mandate for the European Union to combat sexual orientation
discrimination and to treat it in the same line as other human
rights violations", states ILGA-Europe co-chair Kurt Krickler
who attended the two day-conference in Vienna. "And it is
another lobbying success of ILGA-Europe because ILGA-Europe had
submitted a contribution on sexual orientation discrimination
to the expert team which was prepared by Mark Bell, a PhD
researcher at the European University Institute in Florence,
and supplemented by the recommendations of ILGA-Europe's report
'Equality for lesbians and gays men - A relevant issue in the
civil and social dialogue' published last June."

The agenda and the final project report, two key documents on
human rights in the European Union indispensable for all working
and lobbying in this field, have been posted on the internet at
www.iue.it/AEL/welcome.html. French and German translations of
these documents are supposed to also be available at this
website by 16 October.



WILL HUMAN RIGHTS BE IGNORED IN ELECTION FOR EUROPE'S TOP HUMAN
RIGHTS JOB?
By ILGA-Europe

1999 sees the election of a new Secretary-General of the Council
of Europe. ILGA-Europe strongly supports the work of the Council
of Europe in setting and maintaining Europe-wide human rights
standards. It is most concerned that the human rights record of
individual candidates be given proper attention in the election process.

The existing rules for the election make no reference to a
candidate's human rights record.

ILGA-Europe has therefore written to the Foreign Ministers of
the 40 member states, and to the 286 national Representatives to
the Parliamentary Assembly, proposing that a clear commitment to
the human rights standards of the Council of Europe be an
essential election criterion. ILGA-Europe is  also recommending
that Non-Governmental Organisations and other independent organisations
in the human rights field be invited to submit evidence on the
human rights record of all candidates, so that the shortlisting
of candidates takes place in full know- ledge of the essential facts.

For its part, ILGA-Europe is submitting evidence in respect of
its field of competence. It has already expressed grave concern
at the record of the current favourite to win the election,
Walter Schwimmer. In the Austrian Parliament Mr Schwimmer has on
several occasions voted against law reforms intended to bring
Austrian legislation in line with the human rights standards of
the Council of Europe. In parti- cular, he voted to deny the
fundamental rights of freedom of expression and freedom of
association to lesbians and gay men (guaranteed under Articles 10 and 11 of the
European Convention on Human Rights) and against the removal of
discriminatory age of consent laws for gay men (despite a ruling by the European
Commission on Human Rights that such laws contravene the Convention).
He also voted to refuse compensation to the lesbian and gay victims of the
Nazis,
criminals being the only other group imprisoned under the Nazis
in Austria denied such compensation. [Further information on Walter Schwimmer's
record, and on the relevant Articles of the Austrian penal code,
is given below]


ILGA-Europe considers that the case of Walter Schwimmer
illustrates beyond doubt the need for the Council of Europe to
give proper consideration to the human rights record of all
candidates for its top job. The election of a person who has
opposed implementation of the Council's own standards
would be greatly damaging to its all-important human rights
work. It would give the impression that the Council did not take
its own human rights standards seriously, and leave the Council
with a Secretary- General whose moral authority to insist on
compliance with these standards by member states was gravely
weakened. It would also undermine the Council's reputation with
all those concerned for human rights in Europe, and, not least,
with Europe's 50 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgendered people.

ILGA-Europe places the greatest value on the human rights work
of the Council of Europe. This, together with its concern for
the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people,
has caused ILGA-Europe to call upon Europe's Foreign Ministers
and the Representatives to the Parliamentary Assembly to secure
the withdrawal of the candidacy of Walter Schwimmer.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
The Council of Europe's main role is to strengthen democracy,
human rights and the rule of law throughout its member states.
Founded in the wake of the Second World War, it is the continent's
most important human rights organisation, with some 40 member
states committed to observing its human rights standards.
The European Convention on Human Rights is the most significant
of its many human rights treaties. Complaints of violations of
this Convention are settled by the European Court of Human
Rights (until October 1998 aided by the European Commission on
Human Rights).

The Council of Europe is governed by the Foreign Ministers of
its member states (who together form its decision-making body,
the "Committee of Ministers") and by Representatives from their
parliaments (who make up its "Parliamentary Assembly", a
deliberative body which elects the Secretary-General). The
Secretary-General has a crucial role, as head of the
International Secretariat, in promoting the human rights
standards of the Council, and in ensuring the efficient
operation of the Council as a whole. More information on the
Council can be obtained from is website, www.coe.fr


WALTER SCHWIMMER'S RECORD
In 1995 Walter Schwimmer voted against an amend- ment to the
Federal Nazi Victim Compensation Act whose purpose was to make
compensation available to homosexual victims of the Nazis. The
amendment was defeated. Criminals were the only other group
imprisoned under the Nazis to whom such compensation was not
made available. The thinking inherent in Mr Schwimmer's
position, that homo- sexuals are no better than criminals,
conflicts with the judgements of the European Court of Human
Rights in the Dudgeon, Norris and Modinos cases.

In 1996 he voted against the repeal of Articles 220 and 221 of
the Austrian penal code. Article 220 effectively made illegal
the publication of information about homosexuality, in violation
of Article 10 of the European Convention, which guarantees
freedom of expression. Article 221 effectively banned the
formation of organisations for homosexuals, in
violation of Article 11 of the European Convention.

In 1998 he voted against the abolition of a discriminatory age
of consent for male homosexuals (Article 209), despite the
ruling in 1997 of the European Commission on Human Rights in
the Sutherland case that such a law violated Article 8 of the
Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 14.

The Commission's conclusion read as follows:

"66. Consequently, the Commission finds that no objective and
reasonable justification exists for the maintenance of a higher
minimum age of consent to male homosexual, than to heterosexual,
acts and that the application discloses discriminatory treatment
in the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for private
life under Article 8 of the Convention.

67. The Commission concludes, by fourteen votes to four, that in
the present case there has been a violation of Article 8 of the
Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention."


THE AUSTRIAN PENAL CODE: INFORMATION ON THE FORMER ARTICLES 220
AND 221, AND THE EXISTING ARTICLE 209
Although the complete prohibition of consensual homosexual acts
in Austria was repealed in 1971, new laws were introduced with
provisions which were profoundly discriminatory:

a. Article 220 (which was repealed in 1996) effectively banned
the publication of information about homosexuality, violating
Article 10 of the European Convention. The text of Article 220 reads as follows:

"A person who by means of printed matter, film or in any other
public manner incites to lewd homosexual acts or to acts of
lewdness with animals or who approves publicly of such acts in
such a way as to encourage lewd acts is to be sentenced to a
prison term of up to six months or a fine up to 360 x a fixed
daily rate, which sentence can only be suspended if a more
severe sentence is pending".

The phrase "who approves publicly of such acts in such a way as
to encourage lewd acts" was so broad in scope as to make illegal
any non-condemnatory presentation of homosexual relationships.
While convictions under this law were rare, the threat of prosecution
was used relatively frequently by the police in the 1970s and
early 1980s to harass the lesbian and gay movement. The
existence of the law was also used by public authorities as a
justification for refusing services to lesbian and gay
organisations. Finally, the law was used to confiscate safe-sex
material, the most recent occasion being in 1994, when the
Regional Court of Wels ordered the confiscation of a safe sex
video shown by AIDS-Help of Upper Austria at an AIDS prevention
event.

b. Article 221 (also repealed in 1996) banned the formation of
any organisation which promoted "lewd homosexual acts", thus
effectively banning lesbian and gay organisations, in violation
of Article 11 of the European Convention. The text of Article
221 read as follows:

"A person who founds an organisation of a larger number of
persons, the purpose of which is, even though not exclusively,
to further lewd homosexual acts and which is apt to constitute a
public nuisance, furthermore, anyone who is a member of such organisations or
recruits members for it, is to be sentenced to a prison term of
up to six months or a fine of up to 360 x a fixed daily rate."

Again, the phrases "to further lewd homosexual acts" and "apt to
constitute a public nuisance" were so general, and so ill
defined, as to leave any organi- sation for homosexuals open to
prosecution. While there were no convictions under this law, the
threat of prosecution was also used by the police to harass the
lesbian and gay movement in the 1970s and early 1980s.

c. Article 209 (still in force) established an age of consent of
18 for male homosexuals, compared to 14 for heterosexuals. There
are typically 50 police investigations and 20 convictions each
year under this law.


UPDATE ON AUSTRIA
By Helmut GRAUPNER, Rechtskomitee LAMBDA, Vienna

In October the Austrian coalition Platform Against Art. 209 took
the offensive to get international human rights organs to
condemn Austria for its discrimina- tory higher age limit for
gay male sex (18) as compared to heterosexual and lesbian sex
(14) (Art. 209 CC).

Already last year the Platform supported two cases be put to the
European Commission on Human Rights. These two cases, submitted
on the International Human Rights Day 1997 (10.12.), consist of
applications of young men (in their twenties) convic- ted under
Art. 209 CC (to imprisonment) for con- sensual sexual relations
in private with male adolescents between 14 and 18 (for details
see Euroletter 57, 5). The new case submitted recently exactly
parallels the Sutherland-Case with a 17year old gay male
adolescent (from the state of Salzburg) applying to the
Commission. His application however will not be dealt with by
the Commission anymore. From 01.11.1998 the Commission and the
(old) Court are replaced by the new European Court on Human
Rights. All applications submitted to the Commission and not yet
declared admissible will be transferred to this new Court. So
also the two applications mentio- ned above will be transferred.
With also the Sutherland-Case already submitted to the (old)
Court the new Court will at its very beginning be confronted
with a total of four (gay) age of consent-cases.

Currently the UN-Human Rights Committee considers Austria's
periodical report under the Interna- tional Convenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR). Platform Against Art. 209
therefore petitioned the Committee to highlight the violation of
the human rights of gay men in Austria and in its report to call
on Austria to repeal Art. 209 CC.

The European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) is
a body of the Council of Europe set up by the first summit of
heads of state and government of the member states of the
Council of Europe held in Vienna in October 1993. Its activities
which are multidisciplinary and wide-ranging are (amongst
others) to formulate general policy recom- mendations to member
states and to elaborate country-by-country reports thereby
examining the situation in each member state with a view to
drawing up concrete tailor-made proposals to each government.
Platform Against Art. 209 petitioned the Commission to "urge
the Republic of Austria immediately to repeal Art. 209 of the
Austrian penal code and to pardon all persons convicted
according to this law, for instance in (its) country-report on
Austria".

Finally Platform Against Art. 209 also petitioned the European
Parliament to continue its highly appreciated committed
support for the human rights of gay men in Austria and (after
the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam) to initiate the
procedure under Art. 7 TEC (concerning the suspension of rights
of a member state consistently and seriously violating human
rights).

The text of the three petitions can be obtained from Platform
Against Art. 209. The application(s) to the European Commission
on Human Rights are not available due to the confidentiality of
the proceedings.

Platform Against Art. 209 is a non-partisan and
interdenominational coalition uniting 34 organisations against
the discriminatory higher age of consent for gay males (18) than
for heterosexuals and lesbians (14) (Art. 209 CC). The coalition
consists not only of nearly all associations of the Austrian l/g
movement but (to about half) mainstream-organisations, as Aids-
Service-Organisations, the Permanent Conference of the Children-
and Youth-Ombudspersons of Austria, the Austrian Federal Youth
Council, the National Students Union, the Austrian Probationary
Service, the Austrian Society for Sex Research and others.


COURT CONDEMNS DUTCH MP FOR OFFENDING HOMOSEXUALS
By Michiel Odijk

October 6, 1998, the The Hague Court condemned right-wing
Christian politician and member of the Dutch parliament Leen van
Dijke because of the offending nature of remarks he made about
homosexuals. In an interview two years ago, the MP told that
he considered homosexual people who practice their orientation
as in the same category as swindlers. In the court session Van
Dijke based his defence on the fundamental rights of religion
and speech.

The penalty "a fine of 300 guilders, about 140 US dollars, or
six days of imprisonment" was equal to the sentence as demanded
by the Officer of Justice. The judge did not want to take into
account that the leader of the Reformatory Political Federation
had shown remorse since the publication of the interview in 1996.

During the session two weeks ago Van Dijke also said that he had
been "silly" to approve the text of the interview before
publication.

Van Dijke reacted with dismay on the verdict that came as a
complete surprise to him. "I never had the intention to offend
people." he said. His lawyer S. Voogt told that almost certainly
they will appeal, if necessary even to the European Court. The
court ruled that Van Dijke wrongly tried to avoid a sentence
by referring to the freedom of religion and speech. These
liberties also have their limits, the court said. It is a
misunderstanding that under European law priority would be given
to these liberties. Moreover, the treaties are meant to offer
protection against discrimination. The defence that Van Dijke
did not intend to offend homosexuals, but intended to criticize
the hypocrisy in his own circles was unacceptable.

The court did take into account that Van Dijke had suffered from
the publicity in this case, and expressed this consideration in
the verdict.



Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Tel. +45 3324 6435 or +45 2033 0840  Fax: +45 4049 5297
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

20th ILGA-Europe Conference successfully concluded

Sunday 25 October 1998, the 20th ILGA-Europe conference concluded in Linz,
Austria. 100 delegates from 26 European countries participated in the annual
convention organised and hosted this year by Homosexuelle Initiative(HOSI)Linz.

In the four-day conference, ILGA-Europe discussed new actions and lobbying
activities in respect of the Council of Europe, the European Union and the OSCE
as well as activities to increase the visibility and development of the
organisation. In response to the award to ILGA-Europe of consultative status
with the Council of Europe last January, an Action Plan was developed which
includes lobbying for explicit reference to “sexual orientation” in the expected
new broadened Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights currently
under preparation.

ILGA-Europe also approved a Europe-wide campaign to screen all candidates in the
1999 election for the post of secretary-general of the Council of Europe with
regard to their record concerning sexual orientation discrimination. It will
campaign against the nomination of any candidate who has a record of opposing
the implementation of measures which are in line with the human rights standards
of the Council of Europe, and will therefore oppose the nomination of Walter
Schwimmer, who has repeatedly voted in the Austrian parliament against measures
to grant fundamental human rights to lesbians and gays.

ILGA-Europe will carry on with the implementation of its work programme directed
at the European Union, including further involvement in the working of the
European Parliament Equal Rights for Gays and Lesbians Intergroup and lobbying
for a draft directive on equal treatment of lesbians and gay men as a measure to
implement Article 13 TEC as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty.

The Conference agreed that ILGA-Europe and its member organisations should
continue to develop their co-operation with other human rights and social NGOs
both on the European and the national levels.

A series of important Austrian politicians addressed the conference.Federal
President Thomas Klestil sent a message of greeting to the delegates, and
Federal Chancellor Viktor Klima took on the honorary patronage of the
conference. Federal Minister of Women’s Affairs, Barbara Prammer, addressed the
conference on behalf of the Chancellor during the reception given by the
Minister President of Upper Austria and the Lord Mayor of Linz on 21 October.

Three members of the Austrian Parliament, from the Social Democratic, the
Liberal and the Green Parties, gave speeches in the opening ceremony. Another
Social Democratic member of the Austrian Parliament spoke at the ceremony held
on 23 October in the former concentration camp of Mauthausen to commemorate
the gay and lesbian victims of nazi terror.

The host organisation, HOSI Linz, through an extensive scholarship programme,
enabled the participation of many delegates from Central and Eastern European
countries. This resulted in the highest ever percentage of delegates from
this part of Europe in an ILGA European or World conference. Participants
from Albania took part for the first time.

Viareggio in Italy was selected as the venue for the 1999 conference, the host
organisation being Arcigay Pride! of Pisa. Bucharest was tentatively chosen as
the venue for the year 2000.

A new executive board of ILGA-Europe was also elected, its members being:
Jackie Lewis (UNISON, UK), Maren Wuch (lglf, Cologne, Germany), Nico Beger
(Lesbian caucus in the Green Party, Germany), Tatjana Greif (SKUC-Lesbian
Group, Ljubljana, Slovenia), Adrian Coman (ACCEPT, Bucharest), Alberto Volpato
Egalite), Kurt Krickler (HOSI Wien, Austria) and Steffen Jensen (LBL, Denmark).

ILGA-Europe is the European regional organisation of the International Lesbian
and Gay Association, a federation of around 400 member groups in more than 75
countries in the World.

More information is available via email: ieboard@... or from:
Jackie Lewis, phone: +44-171 926 4771
Kurt Krickler, phone: +43-1-545 13 10
Nico Beger, phone: +49-551-486 521
Steffen Jensen, phone: +45-2033 0840

______________________________________________________________________

Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.

20TH ILGA EUROPEAN CONFERENCE TO TAKE PLACE IN LINZ, AUSTRIA, 21-25 OCTOBER 1998
AUSTRIA'S FEDERAL CHANCELLOR VIKTOR KLIMA HAS ASSUMED THE HONORARY PATRONAGE
FOR THE CONFERENCE

On 21 October 1998, the 20th ILGA European Conference will commence in Linz,
capital city of the state of Upper Austria. Local host of the meeting will be
Homosexuelle Initiative (HOSI) Linz. The meeting will discuss, among other
things,
the activities of the organisation during the past year and make decisions for
the work of the new Board for the coming year. Main issues will include the
lobbying activities towards the European Union and the Council of Europe, such
as the follow-up on the ILGA-Europe Action Plan towards the European
Commission, continuous involvement in the work of the European Parliament
Equal Rights for Gays and Lesbians Intergroup and in the social and civil
dialogue on a European level through participation in the activities of the
Platform of European Social NGOs, and in lobbying for a comprehensive
implementation of Article 13 in order that sexual orientation discrimination
be fully addressed in this context.

The ILGA-Europe conference will not only mark the 20th anniversary of ILGA but
also the 50 anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well
as the fact that the host country is holding the Presidency of the European
Council in the second half of 1998. The conference will also debate and decide
upon a comprehensive action plan draft towards the Council of Europe.

Workshop topics range from the situation of gays and lesbians in Eastern
Europe and at the workplace to "gay marriage" and gay/lesbian youth as well as
HIV/AIDS. Thanks to the fund raising efforts and scholarship programme of HOSI
Linz, participation of delegates from the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe will be the largest ever in an ILGA World or European conference. For
the first time, delegates from Albania are expected to attend an ILGA
conference.

A first in the history of ILGA is also the fact that a prime minister has
taken on the honorary patronage for the conference. Federal Chancellor Viktor
Klima is assuming this function together with a series of other personalities
including the president of the Austrian Parliament, Heinz Fischer, the
Minister for Women's Affairs, Barbara Prammer, the Minister of Science, Caspar
Einem, and the spokes persons of the Liberal and the Green Parties, Heide
Schmidt and Alexander van der Bellen. Several deputies of the Diet of Upper
Austria and the City Council of Linz are also assuming the honorary patronage.

The conference will be opened by three members of the Austrian Parliament,
Heide Schmidt, Alexander van der Bellen and Sonja Ablinger (Social-Democratic
Party). The minister president of Upper Austria and the Lord Mayor of Linz
will host an official reception for the conference on 21 October in the City
Hall.

Fringe events include a commemoration ceremony, on Friday, 23 October, in the
former concentration camp of Mauthausen nearby Linz where the Austrian lesbian
and gay movement had mounted a plaque in commemoration of the gay and lesbian
victims of the Nazi regime in 1984, a gay and lesbian film festival, a
sightseeing tour in Linz and surroundings, and a big "Spirit of Power" party
on Saturday in order to honour the official slogan of the conference "Courage
& Joy".

HOSI Linz has received financial support to orgaise the conference from the
Minister of Women's Affairs, the Ministry of Science, the provincial
government of Upper Austria, the City of Linz and the Green and Liberal parties.

More information on the conference can be obtained from HOSI Linz,
Schubertstrasse 36, A-4020 Linz; Phone & Fax: +43-732-60.98.98-1. E-mail:
hosi-linz@...; http://www.hosi-linz.gay.at/

The report of the ILGA-Europe Executive Board on its activities between the
1997 London Conference and Linz is available at ILGA-Europe's website:
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.

PRESS RELEASE

EUROPEAN UNION LAUNCHES ITS HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA FOR THE YEAR 2000
Comité des Sages recommends that sexual orientation discrimination be more
systematically addressed through a European Commission action plan and the
development of a draft directive on equal treatment.

At a conference in Vienna 9-10 October 1998, the human rights agenda for the
EU for the year 2000 was launched and debated by high-level experts and
officials, including from the European Commission, the European Parliament and
the Council of Europe. This agenda is the result of the European
Commission-sponsored project "A human rights agenda for the European Union for
the Year 2000" carried out by an expert team led by Professor Philip Alston,
head of the Department of Law at the European University Institute in
Florence. This project is marking the 50th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights to be celebrated in December 1998 and is intended
to formulate a comprehensive future human rights policy for the EU. Based on
the extensive Final Project Report prepared by this expert team, a Comité des
Sages has elaborated the human rights agenda for the EU for the year 2000. The
Comité des Sages consisted of Antonio Cassesse, President of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Catherine Lalumière, member of
the European Parliament and former Secretary-General of the Council of Europe,
Peter Leuprecht, former Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, and
Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Both the final project report and the agenda have now been published and both
refer to human rights of lesbians and gays. The conclusion and recommendation
of the expert team that "Discrimination based on sexual orientation continues
to be widespread and should be more systematically addressed through a
Commission action plan and the development of a draft directive on equal
treatment" (paragraph 208 of the Final Project Report) was included in full
text in the agenda of the Comité des Sages (paragraph 12).

"This reference is, after Article 13 TEC as amended by the Treaty of
Amsterdam, another clear and strong commitment and mandate for the European
Union to combat sexual orientation discrimination and to treat it in the same
line as other human rights violations", states ILGA-Europe co-chair Kurt
Krickler who attended the two day-conference in Vienna. "And it is another
lobbying success of ILGA-Europe because ILGA-Europe had submitted a
contribution on
sexual orientation discrimination to the expert team which was prepared by
Mark Bell, a PhD researcher at the European University Institute in Florence,
and supplemented by the recommendations of ILGA-Europe's report 'Equality for
lesbians and gays men - A relevant issue in the civil and social dialogue'
published last June."

The agenda and the final project report, two key documents on human rights in
the European Union indispensable for all working and lobbying in this field,
have been posted on the internet at www.iue.it/AEL/welcome.html. French and
German translations of these documents are supposed to also be available at
this website by 16 October.



ILGA-Europe
E-mail: ieboard@...
http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm
Fax: +45 4049 5297
______________________________________________________________________

Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.

UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS MEETS WITH
INTERNATIONAL LESBIAN AND GAY GROUP IN HISTORIC FIRST

Geneva, 8 October, 1998: In an historic meeting today the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, met with a delegation
from the International Lesbian and Gay Association to discuss the
advancement of lesbian and gay rights as human rights. This is the first
meeting between a gay organisation and a High Commissioner.

The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) represents over 400
organisations in more than 75 countries around the world. ILGA has
previous worked to stop homosexuality being classified as a disease by
the World Health Organisation, with Amnesty International on the
inclusion of lesbians and gay men as prisioners of conscience and most
recently were granted consultative status with the Council of Europe.
ILGA celebrates its 20th anniversary this year - making it the oldest
international lesbian and gay lobbying group in the world.

Jennifer Wilson and Jordi Petit - joint Secretaries General, and Kurt
Krickler, co-Chair of the regional division ILGA Europe, met with Mrs
Robinson following an invitation from her office. "The meeting was
extremely positive and is clearly the start of an on-going dialogue with
the Office of the High Commissioner, especially as Mrs Robinson has now
appointed a liaison person in her office for ILGA to maintain stronger
links with" said Jennifer Wilson. Jordi Petit added "Her request for us
to supply material to help in the training of lesbian and gay awareness
for all UN employees and working groups, including rapporteurs and
treaty bodies shows her recognition of ILGA as the peak NGO on lesbian
and gay rights."

The meeting also discussed ILGA producing a definitive report on the
human rights abuses of lesbians and gay men internationally and the
Commissioner indicated that this would be extremely useful in lobbying
the UN for the appointment of a special rapporteur on lesbian and gay
rights. Currently lesbians and gay men are murdered by death squads in
Mexico and Brazil; live in fear of the death penalty in Afghanistan,
Iran and other nations under Sharia law; are denied access to lesbian
and gay literature in Singapore and do not have equal human rights with
heterosexuals in any nation of the world.

"It is clear that Mrs Robinson views her role as a catalyst - and
information is the first tool to achieve change." said Kurt Krickler. A
copy of the ILGA Europe report on the status of lesbians ang gay men in
the 15 nations of the EU and a copy of ILGA's manifesto "Lesbian and Gay
Rights are Human Rights" was left with the Commissioner. Another meeting
is planned for early next year.



______________________________________________________________________

Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.

EURO-LETTER
No. 64      October 1998

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The
European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay
Association
by Gay and Lesbian International Lobby in co-operation with
The
Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians.
Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth
Andersen and
Soeren Baatrup.
Contact to Euro-Letter:
E-mail: steff@...
URL: http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033 0840
Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610
Copenhagen V, Denmark
You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty
message to
euroletter-subscribe@...
and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters are available on the
Internet at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm  and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html

***********************************************************

IN THIS ISSUE

CHANGE OF LAW ON REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP IN DENMARK
REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FAIRLY POPULAR IN THE NETHERLANDS
AN END TO SOUND BITE IDEAS OF WHAT MAKES A FAMILY
WRITTEN PRESENTATION TO THE 1998 OSCE IMPLEMENTATION MEETING

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN LATVIA


Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at
ILGA-Europe's
homepage http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm

An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and
Lesbians in Europe can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm

A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding
same-sex partners can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm

Consolidated versions of the basic treaties of the European
Union including amendments from the Amsterdam Treaty can be
found at this web-site:
http://ue.eu.int/Amsterdam/en/traiteco/en1.htm

***************************************************
CHANGE OF LAW ON REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP IN DENMARK
By Ken Thomassen

According to the Danish law on registered partnership one of
the
partners must be a Danish citizen and live in Denmark.
Norway,
Sweden, Iceland and the Netherlands have similar conditions
in
their laws on registered partnership, although the Swedish
law
includes a clause that means that similar partnerships in
other
countries are automatically recognised in Sweden.

But now the Danish government intends to propose in October
to
the Danish parliament to change the law on registered
partnership in order to give citizens from Norway, Sweden
and,
Iceland the same rights as Danish citizens in relation to
registered partnership. Furthermore it is proposed to give
the
minister of justice an authorisation to give citizens in
other
countries, which have or are going to have a law on
registered
partnership the same rights.

Finally it is proposed to make it possible to enter into
registered partnership, even though none of the partners got

Danish citizenship, if both partners have stayed in Denmark
for
at least two years before the registration.


REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FAIRLY POPULAR IN THE NETHERLANDS
by Kees Waaldijk  (waaldijk@...)

Since January 1998 Dutch law provides for partner- ship
registration. Both same-sex and different-sex couples can
register their partnership. That status has almost all of
the
legal consequences of marriage (for exceptions and further
detail see  http://www.xs4all.nl
/~nvihcooc/marriage.html).Registrations have normally been
possible since mid January, although in some cases of
terminal
illness registration has been allowed to take place in the
first
week of the year. Below are the numbers of partnership
registrations that took place in the first six months (the
source is the Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics,
http://www.cbs.nl/nl/cijfers/kerncijfers/sbv0603a.htm)

The figures are per couple (not per person). In that half
year a
total 2655 partnership registrations took place in the
Netherlands. In Denmark it took more than four years (after
the
introduction in 1989) before a similar number of partners
were
registered (http://www.lbl.dk/partstat.htm). However, if you

take into account the fact that Dutch law unlike Danish law
also
allows different-sex couples to register, and that the
Netherlands have three times as many inhabi- tants as
Denmark,
registered partnership seems equally popular in these two
countries.

The Dutch figures:

Month     F/F     M/M     F/M     Total
January    65      119        59        243
February 119      212      159        490
March    120      191       191        502
April       173      175      149        497
May       146      194       145        485
June       146       154      138        438

Total       769      1045      841      2655


AN END TO SOUND BITE IDEAS OF WHAT MAKES A FAMILY
by Martin Bowley Q.C.

What is the future for the family? In a major speech at the
end
of June, the Home Secretary joined a growing chorus of
politicians, priests and pundits expressing increasing
concern
for the future of the family and the institution of marriage
as
the cement that holds society together.

Few would challenge the validity of that concern for an
institution which is seen my many to be deeply flawed, with
an
alarming rate of divorce, domestic violence and child abuse.
A
few bald statistics make the case: marriages, at 279000 a
year,
have reached an all-time low; divorces are now running at
154000
a year.

More than one in three births now take place outside
marriage.
Religious weddings - only 42 % of all marriages - fell by 10
%
in 1996. Church of England baptisms have fallen by almost 60
%
in less than 50 years.

But marriage, is a legal as well as a social and religious
institution. Reform of that institution will involve legal
reforms in a whole range of areas of law
- taxation, social security, pensions and immigration as
well as
family and criminal law. Surely, then, we are entitled to a
higher quality of debate than that to which we are currently

subject? Common to many of those who speak on behalf of "the

party of the family" in support of "traditional family
values"
is the impli- cit assumption that the only valid family unit
is
the nuclear one of father and mother and 2.4 [school-age]
children.

Not many would deny that providing a stable back- ground for

bringing up children is an important aspect of family life.
Certainly it mmust never be underestimated. But to imply -
as
many do - that procreation is an essential prerequisite for
a
family and family life are must be wrong.

There are many social units where procreation does not, or
cannot, take place, but would all be widely recognised as
families: the single parent and children, the elderly parent

dependent on a single adult child, a married couple who
cannot
or do not wish to have children, even perhaps a same-sex
couple
in a com- mitted relationship. From the outset it is
important
to recognise that marriage, as an institution, is con-
stantly
evolving and changing.

Compare the late Victorian family, which was extended in
terms
of members but was very narrow geographically, with the
contemporarty family which is extended geographically but
narrow
in numbers.

It was refreshing to hear one of the Home Secretary's junior

Ministers, Lord Williams of Mostyn, speaking in the House of

Lords last December, articulating in the case for diversity.
He
said: "We are not in the business of preaching or
prescribing.
Families in our society vary infinitely. We live in a
diverse
society. People are entitled to diverse views about the way
in
which they wish to run their lives. It is not for me or the
government to define precidely what is a family unit. The
mark
of a civilised society is to accommo- date diversity in
others."

I would commend to political and religious leaders and
social
commentators the highly erudite minority judgement of Lord
Justice Ward in Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association
1997
where he said "I would not define a familiar nexus in terms
of
its structure or components. I would rather focus on
familial
functions.

The question is more what a family does than what a family
is. A
family unit is a social unit which func- tions through
linking
its members closely together. The functions may be
procreational, sexual, sociable, economic, emotional. The
list
is not exhaustive. Not all families function in the same
way."

If that is a correct analysis then the definition of the
family
in the late 20th century is much wider than just the
traditional
or nuclear family. If the Lord Justice is right, we need ask
our
political and reli- gious leaders why the family should
continue
to be defined in exclusive, rather than inclusive, terms.

It is only against an intellectual analysis of this rigour
that
the debate on the future of the family and of the marriage
contract - and the legislative implications - can properly
be
conducted. Otherwise, that debate will involve much
prejudice,
even more hot air, and very little light.

Neither Secretaries of State nor archbishops should be
allowed
to get away with tabloid-aimed sound bites. We are entitled
to
better than that. As in all good debates, let's start by
defining our terms, carefully and precisely, and then see
where
we get to from there.


WRITTEN PRESENTATION TO THE 1998 OSCE IMPLEMENTATION MEETING

By Kurt Krickler

The International Lesbian and Gay Association, ILGA, was
founded
in 1978. It is a worldwide fede- ration of national,
regional
and local organisations and groups dedicated to work for
equal
rights for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and/or transgendered

people.

ILGA-World has today more than 300 member organisations in
around 70 countries on all con- tinents. Its structure is
still
very grass-roots oriented, ILGA is basically a network.
Recently, ILGA has taken steps to become a more streamlined
organi- sation. For that purpose, ILGA started a regiona-
lisation process, at the end of which ILGA will have six
regions
corresponding grosso modo to the defined continents. All
ILGA
regions will have independent organisational structures. In
December 1996, ILGA- Europe was the first of these regional
associations to be founded.

During the 20 years of its existence, ILGA has called for
and
carried out innumerable campaigns for law reform in many
countries, campaigns against discri- mination and against
cases
of violation of the human rights of gays and lesbians. ILGA
has
arranged count- less protest actions and amnesty
international-style letter writing campaigns. ILGA has also
given impetus and support to gay and lesbian groups in Latin

America and in South Africa and played a crucial role in the

emergence and development of the first gay and lesbian
organisations in the former East-Bloc.

Major successes of ILGA's lobbying on the interna- tional
level
include the deletion of "homosexuality" from the World
Health
Organization's International Classification of Diseases, and
the
inclusion, into the mandate of amnesty international, of
persons
impri- soned solely on the grounds of their sexual orien-
tation.

ILGA has been lobbying many international orga- nisations,
such
as the Council of Europe, the United Nations, the
Organization
for Security and Coope- ration in Europe (OSCE), and the
European Union. ILGA has participated as an NGO in many
interna-
tional conferences, such as the 2nd UN World Conference on
Human
Rights in Vienna in 1993 or the 4th UN World Conference on
Women
in Beijing in 1995, as well as in regional preparatory
conferen-
ces to these world conferences. ILGA has been parti-
cipating in
the CSCE/OSCE since the Human Dimen- sion Meeting in Moscow
in
1991.

ILGA-Europe is attending the regular meetings of the
European
Parliament Equal Rights for Gays and Lesbian Intergroup and
is a
member of the Brussels- based Platform of European Social
NGOs.
In 1998, ILGA-Europe published a European Commission- funded

report on "Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men - A Relevant
Issue
in the Civil and Social Dialogue", mapping the legal and
social
situation of lesbians and gay men in the EU member states.


PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN LATVIA
By Juris Ludvigs Lavrikovs

On 3 October 1998 Latvian citizens will elect their new
Parliament.  In order to find out how political parties view

lesbian and gay rights issues the Homo- sexuality
Information
Centre circulated a question- naire to the 21 political
parties
which are participating in the parliamentary elections.
Only
five parties considered it necessary to reply and express
their
views on the matter.

They are: the Democratic Party (DP), the Social- Democrat
Women'
s Organization (SDWO), the " Harmony to Latvia" Party
("Harmony"), the Latvian National Democratic Party (LNDP),
and
the Latvian Renascence Party (LRP).

All the parties mentioned, with the exception of the LNDP,
supported the idea that homosexuals should enjoy the same
right
(excluding adoption rights) as their heterosexual
fellow-citizens.  Two parties, the DP and the SDWO, also
supported granting homo- sexuals the right to adopt.
Regarding
restrictions on homosexuals in such public areas as
education,
the civil service and defence, only the DP and the SDWO
expressed the view that homosexuals should not be
discriminated
against.  The other parties which responded stated that they

support the exclusion of homosexuals from these areas.  The
DP,
the SDWO and "Harmony" supported  the inclusion of sexual
orientation in the antidiscrimination clause of the Criminal

Law.  All parties except the LNDP suppor- ted the idea of
the
adoption of a partnership law which would grant same-sex
couples
rights similar to those of married partners with the
exception
of adoption rights.   Only two parties the  SDWO and
"Harmony"
declared that they would take a legislative initiative to
propose such legislation.  However, the DP stated that it
would
not  obstruct  discussion of adoption of such legislation.

The LRP stated that its party and the Latvian State had more

important tasks. Answering the question whether the parties
would be willing to meet lesbian and gay activists to
discuss
the issue of homosexual rights, all parties except the LNDP
replied in reaffir- mative and the SDWO underlined that they

especially interested in lesbian issues.  Finally, the
parties
were asked how they view homosexuality.  Only the SDWO, the
DP
and "Harmony" view homosexuality as one of a range of forms
of
sexual orientation. The LNDP categorized homosexuality as
sickness, perver- sion and profligacy.  The LRP views
homosexuality as a deviation from the norm.

As the poll shows, the most homophobic party among those
which
responded  is the LNDP.  This is the only party which
addresses
the lesbian and gay issue in its election manifesto.
However,
their concern is not for lesbian and gay rights.  The party
maintains that the homosexual movement threatens the
development
of the nation.  In order to protect the nation from 'the
criminal and immoral activities of a perverted group', the
party
proposes to restrict the public advertisement and activities
of
homosexual organizations.  In their manifesto, the LNDP also

accuses 'Russian and Yid plutocrats'  of taking power in the

country and destroying the values of the nation.

The most positive and promising result of the poll is the
fact
that the "Harmony to Latvia" Party,  which has a real chance
of
gaining seats in the new Parlia- ment, is prepared to meet
with
lesbian and gay acti- vists and to take a legislative
initiative
to propose partnership and antidiscrimination laws.



--

Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Tel. +45 3324 6435 or +45 2033 0840  Fax: +45 4049 5297



______________________________________________________________________

Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.

EURO-LETTER

No. 63 			 September 1998

The Euro-Letter is published on behalf of ILGA-Europe - The
European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association
by Gay and Lesbian International Lobby in co-operation with The
Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians. Editors:
Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen and
Soeren Baatrup.

Contact to Euro-Letter:
E-mail: steff@...
URL: http://www.steff.suite.dk
Fax: +45 4049 5297 Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033 0840
Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V, Denmark

You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail by sending an empty message to
euroletter-subscribe@...
and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters are available on the Internet at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/eurolet.htm  and at
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html

*********************************************************

IN THIS ISSUE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ADOPTS URGENCY RESOLUTION ON EQUAL RIGHTS
FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS IN THE EU
THE FULL TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION
ILGA-EUROPE'S REPORT "EQUALITY FOR LESBIANS AND GAY MEN" NOW
AVAIABLE IN SPANISH


Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's
homepage http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm

An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and
Lesbians in Europe can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/survey.htm

A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding
same-sex partners can be found at
http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm

Consolidated versions of the basic treaties of the European
Union including amendments from the Amsterdam Treaty can be
found at this web-site:
http://ue.eu.int/Amsterdam/en/traiteco/en1.htm


**********************************************************

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ADOPTS URGENCY RESOLUTION ON EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GAYS
AND LESBIANS IN THE EU

17 September 1998, the European Parliament adopted with a
majority of 110 against 89 votes (6 abstentions) a resolution
reaffirming the Parliament's defence of the human rights of gays
and lesbians. The resolution was motivated by the refusal,
during the past few months, of the Parliaments of Cyprus,
Romania and Austria to bring their anti-homosexual legislation
in line with European human rights standards as demanded both by
the EP in various previous resolutions and by the human rights
organs of the Council of Europe.

In this resolution, the EP firmly expressed its refusal to "give
its consent to the accession of any country that, through its
legislation or policies, violates the human rights of lesbians
and gay men". The countries concerned are Cyprus, Romania,
Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, and Lithuania.

The Commission has been called upon to take into consideration
respect and observance of the human rights of gays and lesbians
when negotiating the accession of applicant countries.

Additionally, the EP calls upon Austria to immediately repeal
Article 209 of the penal code, which provides for a
discriminatory age of consent for gay men, and to immediately
provide for an amnesty for, and the release from prison of, all
persons jailed under this law. This is especially embarrassing
for Austria since this country is currently holding the
presidency of the EU for the second half of 1998.

"The adoption of this resolution is a big success for the
European lesbian and gay movement", comments Kurt Krickler,
co-chair of ILGA-Europe, the European Region of the
International Lesbian and Gay Association, who followed the
debate and vote in Strasbourg on Thursday. "After a similar
motion for a resolution had failed last July due to the lack of
support from the Socialdemocratic group in the EP, ILGA-Europe
and member groups in most of the 15 EU countries had carried out
a joint and obviously effective lobbying campaign towards the
Socialdemocratic members of the EP in the various countries so
that the PSE group in the EP finally changed its mind. We are
especially grateful to the liberal group (ELDR) and the Green
group which was courageous enough to retable the motion after
the failure in July, and also to those groups which joined the
motion, e.g. the the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, the
radical group (ARE) and the PSE.



THE FULL TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION

JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION (Rule 47)

tabled by the following Members:
Swoboda and Berger, on behalf of the PSE Group
Frischenschlager, Watson, Thors and Plooij-van Gorsel, on behalf
of the ELDR Group
Ojala, Gonz lez µlvarez, Guti‚rrez D¡az, Vinci, Pailler and
Eriksson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group
Voggenhuber, Lindholm and Roth, on behalf of the V Group
Dupuis, on behalf of the ARE Group

replacing the motions by the following Members:

Frischenschlager and others, on behalf of the ELDR
Group (B4-0824/98)
Roth, Lindholm and Voggenhuber, on behalf of the V
Group (B4-0852/98)

On equal rights for gays and lesbians in the EC

- having regard to its resolution of 8 February 1994 on equal
rights for homosexuals and lesbians in the EC1, calling on the
Member States to apply the same age of consent to homosexual and
heterosexual activities alike (para 6),

- having regard to its resolution of 17 September 1996 on respect
for human rights in the European Union (1994)2, demanding the
elimination of discrimination and unequal treatment of
homosexuals, especially in view of unequal age of consent
provisions (paragraph 84),

- having regard to its resolution of 8 April 1997 on respect for
human rights in the European Union (1995)3, repeating the demand
for the repeal of unequal age of consent provisions (para. 136)
and explicitly urging Austria to repeal her age of consent law
(para. 140),

- having regard to its resolution of 17 February 1998 on respect
for human rights in the European Union (1996)4, reiterating its
demand to the Austrian Government to repeal the unequal age of
consent provision in the Austrian penal code (para. 69),

- having regard to its previous resolution on sexual orientation,
discrimination and the human rights of homosexuals in Romania,


- recalling the Copenhagen accession criteria for candidate
members, in particular the requirement to respect human rights,



A. having regard to Recommendation 924/1981 on discrimination
against homosexuals adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe, recommending the Committee of Ministers to
urge all Member States to apply the same minimum age of consent
for homosexual and heterosexual acts (para. 7 ii),

B. having regard to the decision of the European Commission of
Human Rights, adopted on 1 July 1997, in Application No.
25186/94 (Euan Sutherland) against the United Kingdom, finding
"that no objective and reasonable justification exists for the
maintenance of a higher minimum age of consent to male
homosexual, than to heterosexual, acts and that the application
discloses discriminatory treatment in the exercise of the
applicant's right to respect for private life under Article 8 of
the Convention" (para. 66), and concluding that an unequal age
of consent provision is "a violation of Article 8 of the
[European Human Rights] Convention, taken in conjunction with
Article 14 of the Convention" (para. 67),

C. considering that, for reasons of credibility towards the
applicant countries when demanding from them the observance of
human rights, EU member states such as Austria need to repeal
their own legislation discriminating against lesbians and gay
men, in particular existing discriminatory age of consent
provisions,

D. noting that the following applicant countries, with which the
EU has already started the accession negotiation process, still
have legal provisions in their penal code that seriously
discriminate against homosexuals: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia,
Hungary, Lithuania, and Romania,

E. deploring the insufficient law reform voted upon by the
Parliament of Cyprus on 21 May 1998, replacing the total ban on
male homosexual acts by a series of other discriminatory
provisions, including a higher age of consent,

F. deploring the refusal of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies on
30 June 1998 to adopt a reform bill presented by the Government
to repeal all anti-homosexual legislation provided by Article
200 of the penal code,

G. regretting the refusal of the Austrian Parliament to vote for
the repeal of Article 209, the higher age of consent provision
for gay men, on 17 July 1998, thus knowingly ignoring both the
decision in the Sutherland case and the urgent demands towards
Austria expressed by the European Parliament in its
abovementioned resolutions of 8 April 1997 and 17 February 1998,

H. welcoming with great satisfaction the recent law reforms in
this field in Finland and Latvia as well as the positive 22 June
1998 vote of the UK House of Commons on repealing the unequal
age of consent provision for gay men though, regrettably, this
was subsequently overruled by a vote in the House of Lords,

I. considering that Article 13 EC as amended by the Amsterdam
Treaty, once ratified, will empower the Council to take
appropriate measures to combat discrimination based on sexual
orientation,

J. confirming that it will not give its consent to the accession
of any country that, through its legislation or policies,
violates the human rights of lesbians and gay men,

K. whereas, according to official statistics, there are still
every year approximately 50 reports to the police, 30 criminal
proceedings and judicial inquiries and 20 convictions under
Article 209 of the Austrian penal code which provides a minimum
penalty of six months' imprisonment and a maximum sentence of
five years' imprisonment,



1. Calls on the Austrian Government and Parliament to
immediately repeal Article 209 of the Penal Code and to
immediately provide for an amnesty for, and the release from
prison of, all persons jailed under this law;

2. Calls on all applicant countries to repeal all legislation
violating the human rights of lesbians and gay men, in
particular discriminatory age of consent laws;

3. Calls on the Commission to take into consideration respect
and observance of the human rights of gays and lesbians when
negotiating the accession of applicant countries;

4. Asks the Commission in particular to examine, in its review
of the CEEC due before the end of this year, the human rights
situation of gays and lesbians in these countries;

5. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the
Council, the Commission, the parliaments and governments of
Austria, Cyprus, and Romania, and the Secretary-General of the
Council of Europe.



ILGA-EUROPE'S REPORT "EQUALITY FOR LESBIANS AND GAY MEN" NOW
AVAIABLE IN SPANISH

A Spanish translation of the report, cf. EuroLetter 61, is now
avaiable at ILGA-Europe's web site:

http://www.steff.suite.dk/ilgaeur.htm

Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@...
http://www.steff.suite.dk
Tel. +45 3324 6435 or +45 2033 0840  Fax: +45 4049 5297

______________________________________________________________________

Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.

A distribution list for subscribers of ILGA-Europe's EuroLetter - a monthly
newsletter for European politics and law on homosexuality.

To subscribe, send an empty message to euroletter-subscribe@...

To unsubscribe, send a message to euroletter-unsubscribe@...

List Owner: euroletter-owner@...