Subject: EuroLetter 60
From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:35:38 +0200 (METDST)

EURO-LETTER  No. 60 June 1998

THE EURO-LETTER IS PUBLISHED ON BEHALF OF ILGA-EUROPE - THE
EUROPEAN REGION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LESBIAN AND GAY ASSOCIATION
BY GAY AND LESBIAN INTERNATIONAL LOBBY IN CO-OPERATION WITH THE
DANISH NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS. 
Editors: Steffen Jensen, Ken Thomassen, Peter Bryld, Lisbeth Andersen and
Soeren Baatrup.  
Contact to Euro-Letter: E-mail: [email-masked] 
URL: http://www.inet.uni2.dk/~steff 
Fax: +454049 5297 NEW 
Tel: +45 3324 6435 Mobile: +45 2033 0840 
Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl. Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V, Denmark  
You can receive Euro-Letter by e-mail (send a message to the above address)  and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters are available on the Internet at 
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/ILGA/euroletter  
A French summary is avaiable at www.france.qrd.org  You can find a link to
Euro-Letters at http://www.inet.uni2.dk/~steff 

IN THIS ISSUE
CYPRUS - LAW 'REFORM'
CYPRUS SHOULD LIFT GAY BAN, European official says 
PUBLIC STATEMENT ON CYPRUS
CHANGES TO GAY SEX LAW ARE ABSURD
AMNESTY CONCERN AT NEW GAY LAW
UPCOMING LAW REFORM IN ROMANIA
FIRST MORAL VICTORY IN LATVIA
CZECH REPUBLIC: NO MARRIAGES FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS
FRANCE: A PARTNERSHIP BILL 
SUMMER UNIVERSITIES FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS
ARMENIA TO JOIN COUNCIL OF EUROPE
AGE OF CONSENT IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
FOLLOW-UP ON THE AMSTERDAM TREATY

Documents relating to ILGA-Europe can be found at ILGA-Europe's
homepage http://inet.uni2.dk/~steff/ilgaeur.htm

An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and
Lesbians in Europe can be found at http://inet.uni2.dk/~steff/survey.htm

A description of partnership laws and other laws regarding
same-sex partners can be found at http://inet.uni2.dk/~steff/partner.htm

Consolidated versions of the basic treaties of the European
Union including amendments from the Amsterdam Treaty can be
found at this web-site: http://ue.eu.int/Amsterdam/en/traiteco/en1.htm
*********

CYPRUS - LAW 'REFORM'
By Steffen Jensen

Nearly five years after the verdict from the European Court of
Human Rights saying that the Cypriot law criminalizing sex
between gay men is a violating of article 8 in the European
Convention on Human Rights, the Cypriot parliament finally 21
May 1998 passed a new law that decriminalize gay sex. 

But the new law introduces some heavily discrimi- natory
provisions in order to prevent that homo- sexuality is
"encouraged" or "promoted". It is also forbidden to advertise
for gay partners and to make "indecent proposals".

The international pressure on Cyprus to repeal the ban on male
homosexuality had increased up to the parliamentary debate. The
parliament has before debated a law reform but never passed any.
The Council of Europe has (again) asked Cyprus to change the law
(see Reuters article below) and also Amnesty International has
released a press statement on the issue (see below).

The editorial of the Cyprus Mail of May 24th calls the changes
to the law absurd, ridiculous, petulant and spiteful (see
below), and also Amnesty International is concerned over the new
law (see below).

CYPRUS SHOULD LIFT GAY BAN, European official says
By Michele Kambas, Reuters 14 May 1998

NICOSIA -- A senior Council of Europe official urged Cyprus on
Thursday to decriminalize homosexuality, arguing that the ban
clashed with the principle of safeguarding human rights. 

"Cyprus has no choice, no real choice in fact,'' Hans Christian
Kruger, Deputy Secretary General of the 40-nation Council of
Europe, said on the sidelines of an informal European sport
ministers' meeting in Nicosia. 

Cyprus has been under pressure to ditch a 99-year-old law
criminalising homosexual activity since a ruling of the European
Court of Justice in 1993 that sympathized with a Cypriot's fight
to overturn the law. 

Cypriot government officials openly advocate a change but are
having a hard time convincing parliament to act before the end
of May, their self-imposed deadline. 

"This is an international obligation which the country has and
must comply with ... You can prolong it here and there, but not
in the long run,'' Kruger told Reuters in an interview. 

"I believe that this country, with a solid human rights record,
would not wish to be in breach of the European Convention of
Human rights.'' 

Cyprus is the only member of the Council of Europe with laws
banning homosexual behaviour. 

Under the law, first promulgated in 1889, gay men can be
imprisoned for up to seven years for sodomy. Cypriot authorities
say the law is a dead letter, but gay rights' campaigners say
its mere existence is enough to be concerned. 

The dominant Greek Orthodox Church and religious groups are
happy to leave things the way they are. Lifting a ban on
homosexuality would taint traditional values, they say. 

Last year monks and priests picketed parliament after rumours
that parliamentarians would rush the amendment through. 

There may be a repeat performance this year -- the issue is set
to go to open debate in parliament on May 21 or 28. 

The changes sought would allow intercourse between two
consenting adults over the age of 18. 

"There is an urgent need now to come to some rapport... I really
don't know what would happen if the law is not changed,'' said
Kruger, referring to some news reports that the island could
even face expulsion from the Council of Europe if it fails to
comply with the court ruling. 

Locally, advocates of the change have long argued that non
compliance would make Cyprus look hypocritical -- a country that
is selective on human rights at home while frequently accusing
Turkey of mass abuses. Turkey invaded the northern third of the
island in 1974 after a brief Greek-inspired coup. 

But anti-gay activists, convinced all hell will let loose if the
law is scrapped, are already doing their homework. 

Newspapers have reported that the church has sent letters to
each MP urging them to vote against proposed changes. 

Petitions distributed by religious groups urge the public to
condemn the "legalization'' of homosexuality as a "sinful and
heinous act against the law of God and natural law.'' 

Kruger dismissed suggestions the change would encourage
perceived perversion and debauchery. 

"This has been applied to other parts of the world as well and
it hasn't led to an erosion of ethics there. We are talking
about a person's private life, what they do in private. Many
would say this hasn't got anything to do with ethics at all.''

PUBLIC STATEMENT ON CYPRUS
Amnesty International 20 May 1998

Parliament should decriminalize consensual sex between adult
males in private

Amnesty International is calling on all deputies of the Cypriot
House of Representative to comply with the ruling issued in 1993
by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and to support the
repeal of Article 171 of the Penal Code which prohibits sex
between consenting male adults in private.

In 1993 the ECHR held that this article constituted a violation
of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to
which Cyprus is a state party. Article 8 provides that everyone
has the right to respect for his private and family life.
Although there has been no recent prosecution of homosexuals
under Article 171 of the Penal Code in Cyprus, the ECHR took the
view that there was no guarantee that action would not be taken
by a future Attorney- General to enforce the law. In April 1998,
the Council of Europe gave Cyprus until 29 May to comply with
the decision of the ECHR and reform its legislation.

Amnesty International would regard anyone imprisoned solely for
sex between consenting adults in private as a prisoner of
conscience. As it currently stands, the law carries a maximum
sentence of five years' imprisonment.

CHANGES TO GAY SEX LAW ARE ABSURD
Cyprus Mail, Editorial, May 24, 1998

BEFORE we start congratulating the 36 House deputies on their
courageous decision to pass the bill which decriminalized
homosexual acts between consenting adults, the amendments to the
new law must first be questioned.

The fact that politicians are being rather vague about the new
provisions and participated in a closed meeting before last
Thursday's vote should arouse suspicions among human rights and
gay activists.

The decriminalization bill was approved by a majority of House
deputies, although it hardly received a ringing endorsement:
over a third either voted against, abstained or avoided the
issue by not turning up. And the hastily agreed amendments could
see the government dragged before the European Court of Human
Rights once again. 

In view of bigoted objections from the Church and the
reactionary right, politicians saw fit to attach to the bill
ambiguous phrases designed to ensure homosexuality was not
"encouraged" or "promoted".

Also outlawed is advertising for gay partners or making
"indecent proposals".

All such offences carry with them harsh penalties, but as of yet
nobody has revealed precisely how harsh they will be.

Human rights activists are understandably worried about these
vague and general terms and are prepared to take legal action if
gays are victimized.

It is clear that timid politicians introduced penalties for
ill-defined actions to ensure that vociferous opponents of the
bill could not charge them with supporting the 'sinful' gay
community.

The last-minute provisions also seem to imply that sex offences
of a homosexual nature are far worse than those of a
heterosexual kind.

Apparently gay males are not allowed to seek partners through
classified adverts or dating agencies, whereas transsexuals and
lesbians are free to do so.

What will happen to gay rights activists who promote
understanding of homosexuality or campaign for safe sex?

Are gay men to expect long prison terms for being proud of their
sexuality or for holding hands in public?

The amendments to the bill could produce a hornets' nest of
prosecutions because of their vagueness.

The public row over the gay sex bill evinced a staggering
ignorance of the nature and roots of homosexuality.

Archbishop Chrysostomos illustrated public misconceptions about
the issue in Cyprus when he said: "There will be provisions
which allow measures to be taken if, say, a minor is involved or
it is done in a public place... it will remedy the situation to
some extent."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist reading between lines to
realize that homosexuals are perceived as depraved perverts who
linger around public toilets preying on young children.

A quick glance at the crime figures indicates that child abuse
and other sex offences are hardly exclusive to same-sex
practitioners.

Sociologists emphasize that it is the very fact that society is
unwilling to accept homosexuals as equal, even if different,
which pushes some towards the seedier forms of sexual behaviour.

The amendments to the gay sex bill are ridiculous, petulant and
spiteful. They show that Cyprus has yet to enter the 20th
century so far as an enlightened attitude towards homosexuality
is concerned.
Copyright Cyprus Mail 1998

AMNESTY CONCERN AT NEW GAY LAW
By Jean Christou, Cyprus Mail May 26, 1998

GAY RIGHTS activist Alecos Modinos wants Europe to take a close
look at the new law passed last week decriminalizing
homosexuality between consenting adults.

Amnesty International has already declared the wording of the
law unacceptable and a breach of human rights.

"I would be very happy for the European Commission to look at
the law that has been passed," Modinos told the Cyprus Mail
yesterday.

"They have abolished one law to make another one much worse."

It was Modinos who brought the successful action against the old
law at the European Court of Human Rights, bringing
international pressure to bear on the government to adopt new
legislation.

The wording of the new law, designed to appease the opposition
of the Church and the anti-gay lobby, refers to homosexuality as
"unnatural licentiousness", while other vague terms, such as
"indecent proposals" or "advertising" by homosexuals are all
punishable by jail terms. 

Amnesty said that while it welcomed the passing of the law, it
had "serious misgivings" about some of the provisions, which the
organization believes contravene human rights.

"We believe the provisions must either be deleted or amended,"
Amnesty said.

"We do, however, consider it likely that the Cypriot authorities
will give the correct interpretation to the law to ensue it does
not violate citizens' guaranteed rights under the constitution."

The organization warned that anyone sentenced under any of the
"objectionable provisions" would be adopted as a prisoner of
conscience by Amnesty.

"We believe that discrimination against homosexuals continues
because the sentences provided for under the new law are not
analogous with those stipulated for the same crimes committed by
heterosexuals," Amnesty said.

"Unnatural licentiousness, which is referred to many times in
the new law, implies condemnation of the homosexual act."

And Modinos said the new law was more discriminatory than the
old one. "Before, the offences related to any person. Now it's
referring only to males. And calling us 'licentious' in itself
stigmatizes us," he said. "These extra provisions were added to
satisfy the Church."
Copyright Cyprus Mail 1998

UPCOMING LAW REFORM IN ROMANIA
By ACCEPT

Thursday, 7.05.1998, the Romanian Government issued a press
release announcing that a draft law for the modification of the
Penal Code has been agreed upon. The press release reads as
follows:

"[..] According to the draft law, the provisions that regulate
same sex relations shall be repealed; similarly to instances of
sexual relations with a woman, deeds perpetrated under duress or
if the victims are children under 14 or persons unable to defend
themselves or to express their will shall continue to be
incriminated. In order to ensure equal legal treatment for the
deeds stipulated under Article 197 [heterosexual rape - our
note] and Article 200, a unique regulation was instituted, all
these deeds being punished the same, from one to seven years in
prison, if perpetrated under duress[..]"

For the time being, the draft law has not been made public. (see
below)

ACCEPT considers that, if the information contained in the press
release is correct, it represents an important step in creating
a proper environment for the observance of basic human rights
and towards respecting the obligations Romania has committed
itself to. However, it should be emphasized that this is a draft
law that still needs to be submitted to and discussed in the
Romanian Parliament. 

Later in May the actual text was published (translated by
ACCEPT):

"The Government of Romania
Resolution

On the submission for adoption of a draft bill for modification
and completion of Penal Code and Penal Procedure Code.

Reasoning
[..] It is intended that minor persons under 14 years of age and
persons unable to defend themselves shall be protected from
becoming victims of sexual relations between people of same sex
and adult persons shall be protected from such acts coerced upon
them[..]

[..] In accordance with the draft bill, the provisions which
regulate sexual intercourse between people of same sex shall be
repealed, still being incriminated, as in the case of sexual
intercourse with a person of feminine sex, deeds perpetrated by
coercion, or if the victim is a minor person under 14 years of
age, or a person unable to defend himself/herself or to express
his/her will. In order to ensure an equal law treatment of
offences incriminated by provisions under Article 198 and
Article 200, it has been appointed a single disposition, all
these offences being punished equally, if they were perpetrated
by coercion upon the alleged victim[..]

Bill
For the modification and completion of the Penal Code.

Article I. The Penal Code shall be modified and completed as
follows:

[..]
11. Article 197, paragraph 1, reads as follows: 
Sexual intercourse of any kind with another person, by coercion,
or by taking advantage of his/her inability to defend or to
express his/her will, shall be punished by three to ten years
imprisonment.

12. Article 197, paragraph 5 shall be repealed.

13. Article 198, the title of the criminal offence stipulated
under this text and paragraphs 1 and 2 shall read as follows:
"Sexual intercourse with a minor"
Article 198. Sexual intercourse of any kind with a person under
14 years of age shall be punished by one to seven years'
imprisonment. The same punishment applies to sexual intercourse
of any kind with persons aged 14 to 18, if the act is
perpetrated by the tutor or guardian, or by the person who takes
care of or is in charge with the alleged victim, the personal
doctor, professor or trainer, availing himself/herself of this
position.''

14. Article 198, paragraph 5 shall be repealed.

15. Article 200 shall be repealed.

16. Article 201 shall read as follows: "Acts of sexual
perversity.
Article 201. Acts of sexual perversity perpetrated in public
shall be punished by one to five years' imprisonment. Acts of
sexual perversity under paragraph 1 shall be defined as any
unnatural act of sexual nature, other than those of sexual
inversion."[..]

Article III. [..] Conviction sentences of criminal offences
under Article 200, paragraphs 1 and 5 of the previous law, which
are to be carried out or are carried out, shall be examined ex
officio by the pertinent convicting court, or upon request by
the district prosecutor, or by the convicted person, in order to
proceed to the accomplishment of the provisions under Article
200 of the Penal Code.

The conviction sentences which cover the criminal offences under
Article 200, paragraphs 2-4 and under Article 201, paragraph 2,
of the previous law, which are to be carried out or are carried
out, are examined ex officio by the court under paragraph 1 or
upon request by the district prosecutor or by the convicted
person, where it is necessary, in order to proceed to the
accomplishment of the provisions under Article 14 or 15 of the
Penal Code. [..]"

Annexed by ACCEPT: The current version of art. 200 and art. 152

Article 200 of the Romanian Penal Code, in force since 14
November 1996, published in the "Official Gazette" (Monitorul
Oficial al Romaniei), Part I, No 289

Par.1 Same sex relations taking place in public or resulting in a
public scandal*), shall be punished by one to five years
imprisonment. 

Par.2 The act of an adult having sex with a minor of the same sex
shall be punished by two to seven years imprisonment and the
denial of certain rights.

Par.3 Same sex relations committed under duress or against a person
unable to defend himself (or herself) or to express his (or her)
will, shall be punished with three to ten years imprisonment and
the denial of certain rights.

Par.4 If the acts provided for in paragraphs two or three result in
serious injury to the victim's bodily integrity or health, the
penalty is five to fifteen years imprisonment and the denial of
certain rights. If they result in the victim's death or suicide,
the penalty is fifteen to twenty-five years imprisonment and the
denial of certain rights.

Par.5 Enticing or seducing a person to practise same sex relations,
as well as propaganda, association or other forms of
proselytizing with the same aim shall be punished by one to five
years' imprisonment.

"In public" is defined in article 152 of the Penal Code:

"The deed is considered to be committed "in public" when
committed:
- in a place that by its nature or purpose is always accessible to
the public, even if no one is present there;
- in any other place accessible to the public, if two or more
persons are present;
- in a place inaccessible to the public, with the intention that
the deed be seen or heard and if this consequence occurs before
two or more persons;
- in a meeting of two or more persons, except for meetings that
can be considered family meetings due to the nature of the
relationships between the participating persons;
- through any means by which the actor has knowledge that the
occurrence may reach the public."

*) The term "public scandal" is not defined anywhere in the
Romanian penal legislation.

FIRST MORAL VICTORY IN LATVIA
By Juris Lavrikovs

Last summer the Homosexuality Information Centre in Riga,
Latvia, announced its statement "On Homophobia in Police and
Other State Institutions in Latvia" (see our www page:
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/7693 or Euroletter No.
55). This was a case of Gatis Bugoveckis, a police man who was
forced to leave his job at the police station of the city of
Bauska after he stated his homosexuality and a relationship with
another man during an interview to the Bauska newspaper
"Atspulgs". Gatis and the Homosexuality Information Centre
submitted an official complaint of a violation of human rights
on the basis of sexual orientation to the Latvian National Human
Rights Office. The Office was established in 1995 as "an
independent state institution, promoting the observance of the
fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals in the Republic
of Latvia in accordance with the Constitution, international
human rights treaties which are binding for Latvia and the
Constitutional Law 'On the Rights and Obligations of the
Individual and the Citizen'." According to the law which
established the Office, it has a right to investigate
complaints, but its power is limited to "opinions and proposals
in the form of recommendations".

On 17 April 1998 the Latvian National Human Rights Office
announced its opinion following the complaint of Gatis
Bugoveckis and the Homosexuality Information Centre:

"On 10 September 1997 the Office received a complaint from Gatis
Bugoveckis. Mr Bugoveckis considers that he was forced to leave
his job at the police station of the Bauska district because of
his sexual orientation.

To clarify the circumstances of the case the Office required
explanations from the chairman of the police station of the
Bauska district and later from the Ministry of Interior and
pointed to a possible discrimination.

From the received answers, which are not answering the Office's
questions, it is clear that the police do not consider that it
was a human rights violation in this case and do not consider
that Gatis Bugoveckis suffered from intolerance or that his
prove and respect were harmed.

During the investigation of the case, the Office was constantly
receiving contradictory information from both parties of the
case. Therefore the Office had difficulties in delivering its
opinion.

Nevertheless, in examining the circumstances of the case, the
Office takes a responsibility and recognizes that there is
enough evidence (including audio recordings) to demonstrate that
it was a case of discrimination on the grounds of sexual
orientation which is a violation of human rights.

The Office refers to the legislation of the Republic of Latvia
and international law, which are relevant to this case.

The law "On Police" defines the following principles as a basis
of police activities - lawfulness, humanism, human rights and
social justice. Paragraph 28 of this law does not require
heterosexual orientation as a requirement for serving the
police, but instead requires education, physical preparedness,
health, ability and willingness to carry out police duties,
knowledge of the Latvian language, and absence of criminal
records.

Paragraph 6 of the International Covenant of Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights recognizes everyone's right to work and
obliges the contracting parties to guarantee this right without
discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, age, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status. According to the indications of
European lawyers one of these statuses is sexual orientation.
Also, the European Parliament in its recommendations confirmed
that everyone should be treated equally regardless of sexual
orientation.

Recognizing that every individual has a right to private opinion
regarding sexual orientation, it must be considered that
violence or any discrimination against an individual because of
their sexual orientation, in Latvia as a democratic country
which is ruled by law, is a violation of the state's principles
and laws. All people living in Latvia are equal in their duties,
rights and the realization of those rights regardless of
differences among them. Only the state, in specific cases which
are defined by laws, or when an individual through his
activities harms other individuals' rights and freedoms, can
restrict that individual's rights. The Office considers that in
this case the basis for such a restriction was not found.

The Office expresses its opinions and recommendations, at the
same time it must be explained that they are not binding to
other institutions.

Olafs Bruuveris
Director of the National Human Rights Office."

The Homosexuality Information Centre is very pleased with such
an opinion of the Office and believes that despite the lack of
legal effectiveness, the opinion has a significant moral
importance for the lesbian and gay community in Latvia. This is
the first official statement in Latvia where discrimination on
the grounds of sexual orientation is considered as a violation
of human rights contrary to the Latvian and international law.

The Latvian National Human Rights Office supports our proposal
to include sexual orientation into paragraph 69 of the Criminal
Code, which criminalizes discrimination on the grounds of race
or nationality. The Office submitted a separate proposal on such
inclusion to the Parliamentary commission dealing with the
creation of a new Criminal Code.

CZECH REPUBLIC: NO MARRIAGES FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS
By Michael Bluhm

Gays and lesbians will not be able to register as married
couples, which would foremost help in solving property disputes. 

Parliament was short two votes of passing the bill on registered
partnership. The neo-fascist Republicans, most Civic Democratic
Party (ODS) and Civic Democratic Alliance (ODA) and the
Christian Democrats voted against the proposal. The Communists,
Social Democrats and Freedom Union (US) voted for the proposal. 

Registered partnership, legal in seven countries, would in the
Czech Republic enable partners of the same sex to have the same
advantages and security the law gives heterosexual married
couples, with the exception of adopting children. Those who
opposed the law said they were worried about the effect it would
have on traditional family values. Republican Josef Krejsa said,
"Even a healthy buck does not seek another buck, but a doe, so
as to have a fawn," while Jiri Hromada, president of the
Association for the Organization for Homosexual Citizens (SOHO)
said the group would push the proposal after parliamentary
elections in June. 

Neither Social Democrat Petra Buzkova, who promised SOHO her
vote, was present, nor was ODS Chairman Vaclav Klaus. Czech
daily MF DNES quoted Klaus as saying, "As conservative as I am
in these things, I think we have to go with the times. It is a
mistake it didn't make it into the second reading." Anna
Kadava/Andrea Snyder.

FRANCE: A NEW PARTNERSHIP BILL
By René Lalement

Catherine Tasca, president of the Law Commission of the French
National Assembly disclosed the text of a law proposal
introducing a new partnership status, the "pacte civil de
solidarité" (civil covenant of solidarity), on Thursday, May
28th.

This text, written by MPs Jean-Pierre Michel and Patrick Bloche,
is derived from the previous "Social Union Contract" proposal,
which was broadly supported by the gay and lesbian
organisations, and from three previous bills, never brought to
discussion in Parliament. 

Open to any pair of people living together, but not bound by
another covenant, by marriage, sibling or lineage, this covenant
will be concluded at the town hall (at the embassy or a
consulate, if abroad). After one year, it can be dissolved by
the death of one of the parties, by a common statement of the
parties at the town hall (embassy or consulate), or by a court
decision in case of dissent. The parties commit to mutual
material and moral support. The covenant will grant several
benefits, some after a delay: social security (after one year),
common taxation (after 2 years), inheritance (after 5 years),
immigration (after one year), employment, housing. It does not
specify anything about lineage, adoption or custody.

This bill has been welcomed by most associations, although
several points are criticised: obligation to cohabitate, delayed
rights, and no parenthood right for the partner of a biological
parent. On the other hand, the initiators of a petition "to
safeguard republican marriage" signed by some 13,000 mayors,
inspired by the catholic right, oppose this new bill.

It must be noted that two other proposals have been made
recently to the government: one, by jurist Jean Hauser, on the
regulation of the financial relationship between any two
persons, and the other, by sociologist IrŠne Th‚ry, on the
extension of a cohabitation status (presently reserved to
heterosexual couples) to same-sex couples, along with the
addition of new rights to this status. 

The next step will be for the parliamentary commissions to
appoint rapporteurs and organise hearings; the resulting text
will then be submitted to a public session and subjected to the
amendment process. Although Mrs. Tasca recalled the government's
commitment to pass a partnership law before the end of the year,
it is still unclear whether the government, whose support is
necessary, will be influenced by the other two proposals.

The full text in French of the bill can be found at this URL:
http://www.france.qrd.org/texts/pacs-980528.html

SUMMER UNIVERSITIES FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS
By Renato Sabbadini

UNIVERSITA' GAYLESBICA D'ESTATE is an initiative organized by
three Italian gay/lesbian association: "Maurice" (Turin), "Finis
Terrae" (Florence) and "GAO" (Pisa). 

It is, as the Italian name says, a gay and lesbian summer
university, an occasion for people within and outside the
movement to meet for a week at the end of August in order to
listen to lectures on themes related to the gay and lesbian
reality and to discuss on them. The first Universit… Gaylesbica
d'Estate took place last year in Livorno (Tuscany) and more than
forty people attended; the lectures were about the history of
the movement, the treatment that the press gives to issues
related to homosexuality, the queer movement, the history of
homosexuality. 

This year the lectures will mainly focus on the relationship
between male and female homosexuality and the "sciences of the
mind" (psychology, psychiatry, etc.). A part from the lectures
and the discussions following them, there will be also workshops
on "The attitude towards our own body" and "Autobiography".

We would like to know if there are similar experiences elsewhere
in Europe and, if so, to get in touch with the organizers in
order to explore the possibilities of co-operation and to
exchange information about what could be (presumably) common
problems, such as how to get public funding of cultural
initiatives like these and how to deal with organizational
matters. For further information: Pietro Montefusco
<[email-masked]>, Renato Sabbadini <[email-masked]>.

ARMENIA TO JOIN COUNCIL OF EUROPE
By Kurt Krickler

ILGA-EUROPE has just recently a letter to the secretary general
of the Council of Europe about the possible admission of Armenia
to the CoE:

"We have been informed that the negotiations between the Council
of Europe and Armenia concerning Armenia's admission to the
Council of Europe are in their final stages. 

Since Armenia, according to information available to us, still
has a total ban on (male) homosexual acts even among consenting
adults in private, which is a clear violation of the European
Human Rights Convention, we would like to know whether the
Council of Europe has requested from Armenia, as it did from
Romania and Macedonia when these countries applied for
membership in the Council of Europe, to repeal this total ban as
a pre-condition for being admitted to the Council of Europe. 

In this context we would recommend to demand from Armenia law
reform before admission to the Council of Europe, because we
vividly remember the many troubles and difficulties with Romania
which was first admitted and then the two chambers of the
Romanian Parliament had torpedoed law reform for three years
which has also caused a lot of embarrassment for the Council of
Europe. And even this law reform is not in accordance with the
European Human Rights Convention because the present law
restricts both the right to assembly and to free speech in the
context of homosexuality. Thus, we would recommend the Council
of Europe to insist that Armenia first repeal the total ban and
then be admitted. We assume that the Council of Europe has
nominated special rapporteurs for Armenia. 

We would like to ask you to forward our concerns regarding the
admission of Armenia to these rapporteurs and to give us their
names and addresses so that we can contact them directly."

AGE OF CONSENT IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
By Kurt Krickler

ILGA-EUROPE has recently sent a letter to the secretary general
of the Council of Europe about the decision of the Human Rights
Commission in the Sutherland case:

"Another important issue for us is the decision in Application #
25186/94 Euan Sutherland against the United Kingdom. In this
decision adopted on 1 July 1997 and published last October, the
European Human Rights Commission finds that no objective and
reasonable justification exists for the maintenance of a higher
minimum age of consent to male homosexual, than to heterosexual,
acts and that the application discloses discriminatory treatment
in the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for private
life under Article 8 of the Convention. 

In the past, we have always deplored that the 1981 decision of
the European Court of Human Rights in the Dudgeon case
(classifying a total ban on homosexuality as a breach of the
Convention) could not automatically be applied to other
countries with similar or even the same law provisions. Thus,
citizens of Ireland (Norris; decision in 1988) and Cyprus
(Modinos; 1993) had to go again through the whole legal process
up to the European Court in order to get the same decision
delivered again. We do not think that such an approach is really
reflecting the spirit of human rights in general and the
European Convention in particular. 

We are concerned that this may happen again with discriminatory
age of consent provisions violating the Convention in other
member states of the Council of Europe. We strongly feel that
the Council of Europe should appeal to those member states that
still have unequal ages of consent in their criminal law to
repeal those laws without delay and without waiting for being
taken to the European Court by one of their citizens. We are
sure there are appropriate ways and channels within the Council
of Europe, such as the Committee of Ministers, to convey this
appeal to those countries. Repealing unequal ages of consent
would, by the way, be in line with Recommendation 924/81 of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We are amazed
that some of the member states of the Council of Europe have
ignored this Recommen-dation for more than fifteen years now.
Here, we think, that the reputation of the Council of Europe is
even at stake. If the Court finds a violation of the Convention
in one country, the Council of Europe should do everything to
implement such a decision throughout all member states and not
just wait until citizens of those countries concerned embark in
the very very long avenue of submitting a complaint to the human
rights organs in Strasbourg. 

The member states of the Council of Europe which still have
similar age of consent laws to the one of the United Kingdom
are: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Moldova, Portugal, Romania,
and Ukraine.

We therefore ask you, Mr secretary-general, to request the
governments of these countries to equalize age of consent laws
for both heterosexual and homosexual acts, and to invite the
Parliamentary Assembly to reiterate their recommendation and
request of 1981 by adopting a new resolution reminding the
countries mentioned above of their human rights obligations in
this field."

FOLLOW-UP ON THE AMSTERDAM TREATY
By Steffen Jensen

Article 13 in the new (not yet ratified) treaty of the European
Union (The Amsterdam Treaty) mandates the union to take measures
in accordance with other privisions in the treaty to combat
discrimination based on inter alia sexual orientation.

A high level meeting in the implementation on article 13 was
held in Oxford i the beginning of April 1998.

In an attempt to insure that also sexual orientation was dealt
with, ILGA-Europe sent this letter to the ministers of foreign
affairs in the member states:

"We understand that a meeting is to take place in Oxford on the
8/9 April at which officials of the Member States will consider
the options open to the European Union under Article 13 of the
Treaty of Amsterdam to tackle discrimination in the areas of
gender, race, disability, national origin, religious belief, age
and sexual orientation.

We very much welcome this initiative because we consider that in
the case of sexual orientation there is a clear need for early
action under Article 13. 

We appreciate that, given the brevity of the meeting, and the
wide range of issues to be discussed, it will be possible to
devote only a limited amount of time to each of the types of
discrimination in question. So far as sexual orientation is
concerned, there are many issues to deal with, but we would at
this stage particularly wish to draw your attention to two
issues:

1. Equal pay
As you will be aware, the European Court of Justice ruled
recently (in the case of Lisa Grant and South-West Trains Ltd.)
that the refusal by an employer to allow travel concessions in
respect of an employee's same-sex partner, where such
concessions were allowed to heterosexual employees in a stable
relationship outside marriage, did not constitute discrimination
prohibited by Article 119 of the EC Treaty or Council Directive
75/117/EEC.

The Court's judgement highlights the fact that there are no
provisions in Community Law to protect lesbians and gays from
discriminatory treatment in the area of remuneration related to
domestic partnerships. In particular, the Court ruled that
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation could not be
considered as discrimination on the grounds of sex for the
purposes of Community Law. It also ruled that "in the present
state of the law within the Community, stable relationships
between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as
equivalent to marriages or stable relationships outside marriage
between persons of the opposite sex."

Indeed, in paragraph 47 of its judgement, the Court concluded
broadly that "It follows from the considerations set out above
that Community law as it stands at present does not cover
discrimination based on sexual orientation". And, it pointed to
the remedy for this situation by drawing attention to the powers
of the Council to take appropriate action against discrimination
based on sexual orientation in Article 6a (now 13).

2. The Free Movement of Labour, and same sex couples, where one
of the partners is not an EU national

Same-sex couples, where one of the partners is not an EU
national, are in practice denied the freedom to seek employment
in other EU countries, since the EU does not recognise such
relationships. This is both discriminatory, since unmarried
heterosexual couples are accorded this right in certain
countries or at least have the option to marry, and a
restriction on the free movement of labour within the European
Union. Again, Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam provides the
Member States with the basis for remedying this injustice.

In conclusion, we believe that the two issues we have raised
point to the urgent need for the introduction of legislation by
the European Union which would:

make illegal discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation
grant to same-sex couples the same rights as are accorded under
EU law to unmarried heterosexual couples and recognize same-sex
partnerships.

We very much hope that you will be able to support a full
discussion of these ideas at the March meeting."

We have not received any information about the outcome of the
meeting, but we have received answers from UK, Ireland, Austria
and Denmark.

Only the Danish foreign minister Niels Helveg Petersen expresses
positive interest in the issue, as he is "looking forward to the
possibilities given by the new article to combat discrimination
based on sexual orientation.".

His statement has been followed up in a Danish newspaper quoting
the Polish minister of family affairs Kazimierz Kapera for
saying to The Economist that "homosexuality is a decease and
people suffering from that are perverted". 

Niels Helveg Petersen says that as Poland is applying for
membership of the European Union this is something for the
Commission to look upon. He is not sure whether a
anti-dscrimination directive is the way to do it, but suitable
provisions must be taken.