JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, July 3, 2010

[JURIST] Hundreds of Spaniards gathered outside Spain's Constitutional Court [official website] in Madrid Saturday to protest recently approved changes [JURIST report] to the country's abortion [JURIST news archive] laws. Demonstrators representing roughly 60 anti-abortion organizations [AFP report], including Right to Live (DV) [advocacy website], assembled to challenge what they describe [press release, in Spanish] as "the most radical abortion law in Europe," which will allow abortions up to 14 weeks in most cases and until 22 weeks if the mother's life is in jeopardy. The new law, set to take effect July 5, replaces the current law dating back to 1985, which allowed abortions only in the case of rape, up to 12 weeks, severe fetal malformation, up to 22 weeks, or if the woman's physical or mental health was in danger. The protest follows similar demonstrations in March and last October [JURIST reports].

Last month, Spain's conservative Popular Party (PP) [official website, in Spanish] asked the country's high court [JURIST report] to declare the new law unconstitutional, arguing that it violates Article 15 of the Spanish Constitution [text, PDF]. The Spanish Senate [official website, in Spanish] gave final approval to the bill in February. Spain's lower house of parliament, the Congress of Deputies [official website, in Spanish], passed the bill in December after it received approval [JURIST reports] from the Council of State in September. The changes were proposed [JURIST report] last March by a panel of legal and medical experts led by Minister of Equality Bibiano Aido [official website, in Spanish], eliciting widespread protests [JURIST report] throughout Spain. The panel was formed [JURIST report] in September 2008 at the request of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero [official profile, in Spanish] as part of a series of social reforms that have included same-sex marriage [JURIST report] and streamlined divorce proceedings.

[JURIST] Suspected Nazi collaborator Charles Zentai won an appeal on Friday in the Federal Court of Australia [official website] denying a request from the Hungarian government to extradite the now-Australian citizen in order to stand trial in Hungary for war crimes. Zentai is accused of killing Jewish teenager Peter Balazs in 1944 in Budapest for failing to wear the Star of David identifying him as a Jew. Judge Neil McKerracher overturned an extradition order made last year by Australian Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor [official website], holding that the case had no jurisdictional precedent. He directed the government to explore other options besides extraditing Zentai, such as trying him in a domestic court. McKerracher also said it was inhumane to send Zentai, now in his 80s, back to Hungary due to his age and poor health. The extradition proceedings were initiated by the Simon Wiesenthal Center [official website], an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to locating former Nazi war criminals. The center, which has identified Zentai on its top ten most wanted list, strongly criticized the ruling [press release] stating that:

Today is a very sad day for Australia, Australian justice, and especially for the Balazs family and for people seeking justice for the victims of the Holocaust. If anything, the Zentai case shows a lack of understanding by the Australian judicial system of the urgency and importance of bringing suspected Holocaust criminals to justice. Contrary to today's decision, Zentai's age is totally irrelevant...and the notion that he would be treated harshly in Hungary, a member in good standing of the [EU] and NATO is ludicrous. We urge the Hungarian and Australian authorities to take all possible measures to overturn today's unfortunate decision.

Zentai denies the allegations against him and claims that he was not in Budapest at the time of the alleged offense. It is not yet known whether the Australian government will appeal the decision.

Several suspected Nazi collaborators have recently faced deportation to stand trial for war crimes committed during World War II. In May this year a US immigration court ordered the deportation of former SS guard Anton Geiser [JURIST report] to Austria for serving as an armed guard at the Sachsenhausen and the Buchenwald concentration camps during World War II. Earlier that month accused Nazi prison guard John Demjanjuk [NNDB profile; JURIST news archive] was deported to Germany after exhausting the US appeals process [JURIST report] all the way to the US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive]. The Ukrainian-born Demjanjuk faces 27,900 accessory accounts [JURIST report] stemming from his alleged involvement as a guard at Sobibor [Death Camps backgrounder] concentration camp.

[JURIST] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] ruled in two judgments Thursday that under EU law [Directive 92/85 text, PDF] a pregnant worker temporarily transferred or granted leave on account of her pregnancy is entitled to pay [judgments, text] equivalent to the average earnings she received before her pregnancy. The ECJ also called for improvements at the workplace for the safety and health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. The suits were filed by Austrian doctor Susanne Gassmayr and Finnish airline flight attendant Sanna Maria Parviainen, who both suffered losses at work after becoming pregnant. Gassamayr lost on-call duty allowances and Parviainen lost allowances after being transferred to ground staff. The ECJ's ruling is binding on all EU member nations.

The ECJ was created to ensure that EU legislation is interpreted and applied in the same way in all EU countries and that national courts do not give different rulings on the same issue. Last month the ECJ ruled that Dutch restrictions on Internet gambling were compatible with EU law on service provisions and games of chance [Article 49-EC text, PDF], holding that that national regulations on games of chance are compatible with EU law [JURIST report] when they are enacted to mitigate addiction and combat fraud. The ECJ ruled in April that the UK may not restrict government benefits [JURIST report] to the spouses and families of suspected terrorists. The court struck down the UK's interpretation of EU law, finding that it does not fulfill the purpose of combating international terrorism. In November the ECJ ruled that airline passengers confronted with flight delays of two hours or more may receive compensation equal to that of passengers whose flights are canceled. The case arose under European Parliament and European Council Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 [text, PDF], which sets rules for compensation and assistance of airline passengers.