About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

18 Int'l J. Discrimination & L. 3 (2018)

handle is hein.journals/ijdisclw18 and id is 1 raw text is: IJDL International journal of Discrimination and the Law Editorial 2018, Vol. 18(1) 3-4 @) The Author(s) 2018 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.ul/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10. 1177/1358229118762215 journals.sagepub.com/home/di OSAGE Editorial 18(I) In this issue Therese MacDermott examines the problems in pursuing federal anti- discrimination proceedings in Australia, where complaints are pursued on the basis of the individual's private rights or interests and the complaint is treated as one between the parties, although the results of litigation are likely to affect others in the community with the same characteristic, as well as the broader standards. She argues that collective means of pursuing complaints are under-developed. The current approach adopted by the courts has left NGOs and public interest groups unable to help relieve the burden on individuals seeking redress. Her article examines the limited use of representative pro- ceedings to pursue discrimination complaints and identifies the lack of empowerment of the federal human rights agency, the Australian Human Rights Commission, to pursue test case litigation or to assist complainants with litigation. Under the statutory frame- work the burden falls exclusively on the individual experiencing discriminatory conduct to pursue the matter, while public interest groups and NGOs have been excluded from anti-discrimination proceedings. Class actions or representative complaints are rarely used because of their complexity and their limited remedies. At present the Commission has limited powers to intervene. The failure to give powers to anti-discrimination agen- cies is an oversight of Australian anti-discrimination law. MacDermott argues that statutory change is needed to address the issue. Dondoli also considers the role of NGOs, but focuses on their efforts to persuade the courts to recognise indirect discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation against same sex couples. She claims that NGOs have had an important role in influencing both the court and the debate and discusses the decision in Taddeucci and McCall v Italy in 2016, where the Strasbourg Court recognised that an unmar- ried same sex couple is discriminated against when not allowed to attain the rights and benefits attached to marriage. One of the applicants had been denied a family residence permit and the applicants argued their situation was quite different from an unmarried different sex couple because the marriage requirement is an insur- mountable obstacle, given that Italy does not recognise same sex marriage and has only recently recognised civil unions. The Strasbourg Court has now accepted that unmarried same sex couples are discriminated against on the grounds of their sexual orientation and are treated less favourably than married different sex couples. Dondoli also notes the implications of this decision for the right to form a family and access to adoption and assisted reproductive treatments.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most