CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 janvier 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 49 January 2003 S.L. v. Austria - 45330/99 Judgment 9.1.2003 [Section I] Article 14 Discrimination Different age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual/ lesbian acts: violation Facts : The applicant, who is homosexual, complained that until he reached the age of 18 he was unable to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult man, since under Article 209 of the Criminal Code (see L. and V. v. Austria, above) it was an offence for an adult man to commit homosexual acts with a person between 14 and 18 years old. Law : Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 – The repeal of the provision at issue in 2002 did not affect the applicant’s status as a victim, as he had been prevented from entering into any sexual relationship with an adult man and had thus been directly affected by the maintenance in force of the provision until he reached the age of 18. There had been no acknowledgement of or redress for the alleged breach. Nor had the matter been resolved with the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. On identical grounds to those in the L. and V. judgment (see above), the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 5,000 € in respect of non-pecuniary damage and also made an award 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