a) Armenia / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 17-09-2004 / e) DCC-508 / f) On the conformity with the Constitution of obligations set out in the Protocol no.12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms / g) to be published in Tegekagir (Official Gazette) / h) .
Keywords of the Systematic Thesaurus:
Fundamental Rights - Equality.
Keywords of the alphabetical index:
The obligations assumed by Armenia upon ratification of Protocol 12 ECHR are compatible with the Constitution, as the Protocol established an international legal mechanism for the realisation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination as enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, as well as for the realisation of the implementation of the guarantee set out in Article 4 of the Constitution.
An application was lodged by the President of the Republic requesting the Constitutional Court to consider whether the obligations set out in Protocol no. 12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were in conformity with the Constitution.
Article 14 ECHR provides for a general rule prohibiting discrimination. Article 1 Protocol 12 ECHR guarantees additional protection against discrimination. The Protocol requires the Contracting Parties to secure without any discrimination the enjoyment of not only the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention, but also those provided for by their national legislation. By virtue of Article 1.2 of Protocol 12, everyone is protected against any form of discriminatory treatment by any public authority.
By ratifying Protocol no. 12, Armenia assumed an obligation to secure the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms determined by its national legislation, 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. Armenia is also obliged to secure that no public authority will treat anyone in a discriminatory manner.
The Constitutional Court considered it necessary to mention in its decision, that the content of the concept "discrimination" had been determined and interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. According to the European Court of Human Rights, not every distinction or difference of treatment amounts to discrimination. Particularly, in its judgment of 28 May 1985 on the case Abdulaziz, Cabales and Bakandali v. the United Kingdom, the European Court stated: "a difference of treatment is discrimination if it has no objective and reasonable justification, that is, if it does not pursue a 'legitimate aim' or if there is not a 'reasonable relationship of proportionality between the measure employed and the aim sought to be realised'".
European Court of Human Rights:
- Case Abdulaziz, Cabales and Bakandali v. the United Kingdom, Special Bulletin Leading Cases - ECHR [ECH-1985-S-002], Vol. 94, Series A.