CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 janvier 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 49 January 2003 L. and V. v. Austria - 39392/98 and 39829/98 Judgment 9.1.2003 [Section I] Article 14 Discrimination Different age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual/ lesbian acts: violation   Facts : Each of the applicants was convicted of engaging in homosexual acts with adolescents between 14 and 18 years old. Article 209 of the Criminal Code, which was repealed in 2002, provided that it was an offence for a male over 19 years old to engage in sexual acts with a person of the same sex between 14 and 18 years old. Consensual heterosexual or lesbian acts between an adult and a person over 14 years old were not punishable. Law : Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 – The amendment of the law in 2002 did not affect the applicants’ status as victims, as their convictions were unaffected by it. Thus, the matter had not been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. Sexual orientation is covered by Article 14 and differences based on sexual orientation require particularly serious reasons by way of justification. Although in previous cases concerning Article   209 of the Austrian Criminal Code the European Commission of Human Rights had found no violation, it had concluded in the more recent case of Sutherland v. the United Kingdom (no. 25186/94) that in the absence of any objective and reasonable justification the maintenance of a higher age of consent for homosexual acts violated Article   14 taken together with Article 8 of the Convention. The Commission had had regard to recent research according to which sexual orientation is usually established before puberty and to the fact that the majority of member States of the Council of Europe had recognised equal ages of consent. In the light of these developments, the Government had not in the present case offered convincing and weighty reasons justifying the maintenance in force of Article 209 of the Criminal Code and, consequently, the applicants’ convictions. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 8 – It was unnecessary to rule on the question whether there had been a violation of Article 8 taken alone. Conclusion : not necessary to examine (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded each applicant 15,000 € in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made awards in respect of costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes