Erasing Q, W and X, erasing cultural differences†

Group Vulnerability, Asymmetrical Balance, and Multicultural Recognition

“…Even if the Court has not yet fully developed a clearly defined set of indicators to determine the characteristics of vulnerable groups, three elements should be highlighted: relationality, particularity, and a harm-based approach (Peroni andTimmer 2013, 1064).…”

“…in Greece amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case, the Court grounded its analysis in the consideration of the daily reality of asylum seekers in Greece, their dependence on the state, the trauma they experienced during the process of migration, and the deficiencies of the Greek asylum system (Peroni andTimmer 2013, 1069). The Court deemed that "such living conditions, combined with the prolonged uncertainty in which he has remained and the total lack of any prospects of his situation improving" (ECHR 2011, par.…”

“…Similarly, we may consider the condition of vulnerability (and particularly of group vulnerability) as a "magnifying glass," as a lens through which every deprivation, and every discrimination, looks bigger (Peroni andTimmer 2013, 1079). It does not mean that such a balance will always support these people's claims: It is true, for instance, that the ECHR's case law shows a tendency to grant national authorities a wide margin of discretion in dealing with religious diversity (e.g., in cases regarding Islamic veils), and to legitimise defensive attitudes against minority religions (Torbisco Casals 2016, 397).…”

“…96). Even if such a positive obligation to facilitate the lifestyle of Roma does not mean that minorities are allowed to live according to their culture, because the obligation is procedural, it requires state authorities to show they have taken into account the specific cultural situation in policy-making and judicial interpretation (Peroni andTimmer 2013, 1077). If this does not amount to a multicultural policy, it is, however, a careful consideration of cultural diversities.…”

“…Even if the Court has taken a rather restrictive approach in this field, granting a wide margin of appreciation to the contracting states in view of the existence of a multitude of factors in each country and the absence of a European common denominator, some scholars argue that the vulnerability‐based approach could be adopted (Peroni ). Many cases can be taken as examples: in Kemal Taşkın and Others v. Turkey (ECHR ), concerning the refusal to register the applicants’ Kurdish names, the Court found no violation of Article 8 of the Convention (which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life).…”