The principle of respect for human dignity is at the origin of any national or international text on the protection of fundamental rights. It is a conceptual principle which is present throughout the proclamation of such rights. The first article of the Charter enshrines this principle, although it is not generally included as such in other texts, where it is mentioned in the preamble, or as an objective which the rights set out or the measures provided for help to achieve. Human dignity is inviolable, there can be no exception, nor can any limit be imposed, even where law and order is concerned.
It is difficult to define the outline of this principle in legal terms: is it possible for human dignity to be subject to a legal decision? Is it not the case that the violation of the majority of fundamental rights and freedoms also breaches the respect and protection of human dignity? The legal approach to this idea has changed. In many areas, it is now accepted that certain situations are liable to breach human dignity, yet legal protection may not always be available to the individuals concerned. This is the case in areas such as health, (for example in terminal illness, or where the conditions for psychiatric internment are concerned) extreme poverty (for example the right to housing), the treatment of illegal aliens or of foreigners whose legal status has not yet been clarified, prison conditions. (for example the mother and child relationship, the elderly, or the mentally handicapped)
It is even more difficult to reach a legal definition of the idea of human dignity when dealing with the "status" of embryos or euthanasia.

Explanations relating to the complete text of the Charter as set out in the Charter.
Documents and contributions of the preparatory works of the Convention:

• Archives of the European Parliament.
• Archives of the European Commission.

UNITED NATIONS
Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR) of 10 December 1948.
Preamble : Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. (...)

International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 16 December 1966.
Preamble : (...) Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that these rights derive from inherent dignity of the human person, (...)
Article 10.1 : All persons deprive of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

International Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 16 December 1966.
Preamble : (...) Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person. (...)

Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 november 1989.
Article 37 : States Parties shall ensure that: (...)
c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. (...)

Convention on Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolution 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977.

Convention on Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners.
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990.

UNHCHR

Website of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Convention on Cybercrime of 23 November 2000.

Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, Strasbourg, 28 January 2003.

Committee of Ministers

White Paper on the protection of the human rights and dignity of people suffering from mental disorder, especially those placed as involuntary patients in a psychiatric establishment.

Recommendation (2000) 3, of 19 January 2000 on the Right to the Satisfaction of Basic Material Needs of Persons in Situations of Extreme Hardship.

Recommendation (2001) 8, of 5 September 2001on self-regulation concerning cyber content (self-regulation and user protection against illegal or harmful content on new communications and information services).

Recommandation (2004) 10, of 22 September 2004 concerning the protection of the human rights and dignity of persons with mental disorder.

Parliamentary Assembly

Resolution 1307 (2002), on Sexual exploitation of children: zero tolerance.

Recommendation 1583 (2002), on Prevention of recidivism in crimes against minors.

Recommendation 1656 (2004), of 27 April 2004 ‘Situation of European prisons and pre-trial detention centres.’

• Programme of action on "Children and violence" (2005-2007)
• The Council of Europe has drawn up a convention capable of responding to the challenges posed by cybercrime
• The Human Dignity and Social Exclusion Project by the Council of Europe

Communication from the Commission of 16 October 1996 "Green paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services" .COM (96) 483.

Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 17 February 1997 on illegal and harmful content on the Internet.
Publication : OJ C 70 of 6 March 1997.

Communication from the Commission of 18 November 1997, on the follow-up to the Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services.
(Recommendation of a Council proposal) - COM (97) 570

Recommendation 98/561/EC, of 24 September 1998, on the development of the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity.
Publication : OJ L 270 of 7 October 1998.

Decision No 276/1999/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 1999, adopting a multiannual Community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks.
Publication : OJ L 033 of 6 February 1999.

Decision 2000/375/JAI, of the Council of 29 May 2000, to combat child pornography on the Internet.
Publication : OJ L 138 of 9 June 2000.

Evaluation Report of 27 February 2001, from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the application of Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 concerning the protection of minors and human dignity, COM(2001)106 of 27 February 2001.

Conclusions of the Council of 23 July 2001, on the Commission's Evaluation Report on the application of the recommendation concerning the protection of minors and human dignity.
Official Journal C 213 , 31/07/2001 p. 10.

Decision 1151/2003/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003, amending Decision No 276/1999/EC adopting a multiannual Community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks
Official Journal L 162 , 01/07/2003 P. 0001 - 0004

Decision 854/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 establishing a multiannual Community Programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies (Text with EEA relevance)
Official Journal L 149 , 11/06/2005

Current legislative procedures

Draft Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council on the protection of minors and human dignity and the right of reply in relation to the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry.
COM (2004) 341 of 30 April 2004.

Scope of the right as set forth and the European Union framework for action

The protection of human dignity is the source of the guarantee of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Naturally, it constitutes the essential objective of human rights provisions. All political action in general must respect this objective, but direct offences against human dignity concern certain sectors in particular. The articles of Chapter One of the Charter guarantee rights that safeguard human dignity. This section deals with the Union's actions to protect human dignity that do not come within the scope of other Charter rights. In addition to the rights in Chapter I, Article 31 establishes the right to working conditions that respect the worker's dignity.

In the audiovisual and new information and communication technologies sectors, the regulatory frameworks set into place at European level contain chapters related to the fight against illegal material and offences against human dignity.

The Community intervenes in the audiovisual sector to create the conditions for the free movement of television programmes and other information services, under the rules of free competition. In this context, the Commission presented in 1996 a Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services, with the aim of initiating a harmonisation of means to combat illegal material (child pornography) and to restrict the access of minors to programmes or services for adults, taking account of technological changes and the development of new services.

The fundamental freedoms of expression and information (cf. Article 11 of the Charter) are guaranteed in the audiovisual sector and for the new information services. They can nevertheless be restricted, when justified to protect the general interest and in proportion to the objective being sought.

The European Union's action takes account of the important distinction between the circulation of illegal material, and that of authorized programmes, messages or services that could be harmful to the development of minors. In the first case, the Green Paper recommends cooperation between Member States in the areas of justice and home affairs, the development of common regulations and a coordinated effort to combat illegal content. In the second case, the Union seeks to ensure that Member States implement the technical means available to prevent access by minors to pornography or violent material.

The Television without Frontiers Directive 97/36/EC, of 30 June 1997 (amending Directive 89/552/EEC) introduced a provision in Chapter V, "Protection of Minors and Public Order", on the protection of minors against television programmes that could impair their development (Articles 22 and 22 b of the directive), and a prohibition of incitements to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality (Article 22 a). In a communication on 19th July 1999, the Commission presented a Study on parental control of television broadcasting, (COM (1999) 371) in application of article 22b.2. of the "Television Without Frontiers" directive. The communication examines the advantages and drawbacks of measures aimed at facilitating the control exercised by parents or guardians over the programmes that minors may watch. (filters, programme ranking systems, education and family awareness policies)
On 24 September 1998, the Council adopted a recommendation on the development of a more competitive European audiovisual and information services industry promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity. This text instructs Member States, industry, the private parties concerned and the Commission to cooperate to foster parental control and self-regulation of services for the protection of minors and to seek new ways of protecting minors. The Commission presented two evaluation reports on the application of this recommendation:

• COM (2001) 106 of 27 February 2001; (Council Conclusions on the evaluation report on 23 July 2001, OJ C 213 of 31 July 2001, p. 10)
• COM (2003) 776 of 12 December 2003.

In the second report, the Commission contemplates making a proposal to update the 1998 recommendation in the fields of media education, right of reply and the fight against discrimination and against inciting hatred based on race, sex or nationality in all media.
A proposal for a recommendation was presented in April 2004 that encourages cooperation between Member States, industries and associations of users to reinforce the efficiency of the protection of minors and human dignity in the audiovisual and information services, taking into consideration technological developments. Taking up the draft formulated by the Commission in the 2003 report, this proposal asks for making parents, educators and professors responsible, introducing exchange of experiences between national bodies responsible for labelling or classifying audiovisual content and combating, within the industry itself, all forms of discrimination based on sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in all media.

Numerical content that prejudices human dignity

In parallel with the Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services, the Commission adopted a communication on illegal and harmful content on Internet. The communication was followed by the resolution of 17 February 1997 on illegal and harmful content on Internet, adopted by the Council and representatives of the Member State governments meeting in the Council. This resolution invites the Member States to encourage self-regulation through the use of filters or warnings about the nature of services.

On 25 January 1999, the European Parliament and Council adopted a decision establishing a multi-annual Community action plan for the promotion of safer use of Internet through action to combat illegal and harmful content. The four-year action plan, based on Article 153.2 EC (consumer protection), has a budget of € 25 million. It serves as an operational instrument giving service providers and users an incentive to participate in self-regulation, to develop technical solutions to identify content (filters, rating system), to evaluate the effectiveness of measures and to provide coordination with similar international initiatives. A follow-up to this action plan was adopted by the amending Decision of 16 June 2003. On the initiative of the Members of the European Parliament, the title of the action plan was changed to illustrate the priority given to protection of children and minors: ‘Multiannual Action Plan on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies by combating illegal and harmful content, mainly in the domain of protection of children and minors.’ The budget allocated to the second phase (2003-2004) is 13.3 million euro, bringing the total to 38.3 million euro for the action plan begun in 1999. The changes given draw from the experience acquired during the first phase, and in particular relate to improving protection of children and minors by extending safe use of new online technologies (online games, real-time communication, text and enhanced messages, etc.), enforcing participation of the actors concerned, particularly the content and media industries, and building cooperation with the State-supported bodies in this field. On 3 November 2003, the Commission presented an evaluation report on this action plan for the 1999-2002 period.
Decision 854/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 establishing a multiannual Community Programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies

In the context of combating crime and trafficking in humans beings (cf. article 5 of the Charter), on 29th May 2000 the Council adopted a Decision 2000/375/JHA, on combating child pornography on the Internet. Given the existence of other measures intended to protect minors and human dignity in the field of broadcasting, it had become necessary to adopt a specific measure to "prevent and combat the sexual exploitation of children and, in particular, the production, processing, distribution and possession of child pornography on the Internet." The Council decision lays down that the Member States must encourage Internet users to inform the authorities about child pornography distributed on the Internet, to adapt their law enforcement services and legal procedures to technological developments and ensure that these services react rapidly to suspected offences in this area. It also provides for the establishment of a list of national contact points accessible 24 hours a day for reporting the suspected distribution of child pornography. On 25th June 2001, the Council adopted a recommendation in line with this, on the contact points maintaining a 24-hour service to combat high-tech crime (OJ C 187 of 3rd July 2001, p. 5).

On 27th May 1999, the Council also adopted a joint position (1999/364/JAI) on negotiations on the draft convention on cybercrime carried out at the Council of Europe (OJ L 142 of 5th June 1999). The Convention on Cybercrime was adopted on 23rd November 2001 in Budapest. All the Member States of the Union are signatories, except for Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg. The United States, Canada, South Africa and Japan have also signed it. It is the first international treaty dealing with criminal offences involving the Internet and other computer networks, including child pornography. The convention provides for measures involving criminal proceedings, such as the interception and search of networks.

• Website of the Council of Europe on Cybercrime.
• Special file of the Council of Europe on Cybercrime.

The principle of respect for human dignity is universal, recognised equally on the international level and the national orders, as a fundamental value in society.
Nevertheless, its legal value and the circumstances under which it is applied in international law have not been formally defined.
On the European level, case-law originating from the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights has specified, particularly in the field of Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture and punishment or inhuman or degrading treatment), the scope of the principle of respect for human dignity.

E.C.H.R.

The European Convention on Human Rights does not expressly mention human dignity. Nevertheless, along with the principles of liberty and equality, it forms the basis of rights as a whole as provided by the Convention. The principle of respect for human dignity is recognised and applied by European States party to the Convention. Common to European national rights, it is part of the "common understanding" and to the "common heritage of ideals" mentioned in the preamble to the Convention. In its Soering decision of 1989, the Court held that "(…) any interpretation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed [in the Convention] has to be consistent with [its] 'the general spirit', an instrument designed to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society" (§ 87). The interpretation - in the present case of Article 3 ECHR - may thus take into consideration, among other elements, the Convention's preamble.

The principle of respect for human dignity is thus the watermark of the ECHR, and consists at the same time of a purpose of the protection of human rights. In this way, it constitutes a material policy of interpretation that is essential for the Strasbourg organs. This was especially held by the Court in its Tyrer decision of 1978, § 33: "(…) Thus, although the applicant did not suffer any severe or long-lasting physical effects, his punishment - whereby he was treated as an object in the power of the authorities - constituted an assault on precisely that which it is one of the main purposes of Article 3 to protect, namely a person's dignity and physical integrity." (cf. B. Maurer, "Le principe de respect de la dignité humaine et la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme", CERIC, La Documentation française, Monde européen et international coll., 1999, n. pp. 248-259)

The principle of human dignity is thus retained and implemented, along with the provisions of the Convention, by the Strasbourg organs. This has especially emphasised the unwaivable nature of some rights (articles 2, 3, and 4 ECHR), or extended the application of some provisions by the exceptional nature of certain circumstances (articles 6 and 7 ECHR).

First reference to human dignity by the ECHR

The proceedings of the East African Asians, app. 4715/70, 4783/70 and 4827/70, ECommHR report of 14 December 1973.
Grouped applications by United Kingdom nationals of foreign origin residing in East Africa, who, despite having British passports, were refused entry into United Kingdom territory as a result of the application of immigration legislation.
In its report, "In the Commission's opinion, the racial discrimination publicly suffered by the applicants in the application of the above-mentioned immigration legislation constitutes an infringement of their human dignity, which, under the particular circumstances described above (§203 to 206), constitute 'degrading treatment' within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention." [unofficial translation] (§§207 and 208).
In this case, violation of article 3 was found as a consequence of the discrimination having amounted to a certain "degree of seriousness". The Commission emphasised that the treatment of the applicants by the legislation at issue resulted in their being reduced "to second-class citizens".

First reference to human dignity by the ECHR

Tyrer v. UK, 25 April 1978.
The applicant claims that the corporal punishment provided for by the law applicable on the Isle of Man and by which he was convicted is contrary to Article 3 ECHR "Although the applicant did not suffer any severe or long-lasting physical effects, his punishment - whereby he was treated as an object in the power of the authorities - constituted an assault on precisely that which it is one of the main purposes of Article 3 to protect, namely a person's dignity and physical integrity" (§ 33).

The Court's first examination of an alleged infringement of human dignity

Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. UK, 28 May 1985.
The applications consider complaints of racial and sexual discrimination, principally within the scope of article 14. The court concludes that there was discrimination based on sex and, for one of the applicants, on birth. Articles 14 and 8 were, therefore, breached. Examining the violation of Article 3 since the applicants had brought a complaint of "affront to human dignity", the court observed that "the difference of treatment complained of did not denote any contempt or lack of respect for the personality of the applicants and that it was not designed to, and did not, humiliate or debase but was intended solely to achieve the aims referred to in paragraphs 75, 76, 78 and 81 above [immigration controls](…). It cannot therefore be regarded as 'degrading'."

Right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time (article 6(1) ECHR)

Bock v. Germany, 29 March 1989.
"[The Court] cannot disregard the personal situation of the applicant who, for some nine years, suffered by reason of the doubts cast on the state of his mental health which subsequently proved unfounded. This represented a serious encroachment on human dignity" (§ 48).
X v. France, app. 18020/91, ECommHR report of 17 October 1991.
"Aside from the legal issues inherent in all judicial proceedings, in this case there is in fact respect for the human dignity of someone standing trial who is so deeply distraught by the thought that there will be no end (…). Considering the unique nature of this case, the 'reasonable time' was exceeded." [unofficial translation] (§51). The principle of human dignity authorises an exceptional application of Article 6 in the case in question: the illness was a satisfactory exception to the interpretation of a "reasonable time" for human dignity.

No punishment without law (Article 7 ECHR)

S.W. v. UK and C. v. UK, 22 November 1995.
The following two (identical) decisions dealing with rape within a marriage mark the express recognition of human dignity - and freedom - as fundamental objectives of the ECHR.
The applicant alleged a violation of Article 7 ECHR, following his conviction for raping his wife.
"The essentially debasing character of rape is so manifest that the result of the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords - that the applicant could be convicted of attempted rape, irrespective of his relationship with the victim - cannot be said to be at variance with the object and purpose of Article 7 (art. 7) of the Convention, namely to ensure that no one should be subjected to arbitrary prosecution, conviction or punishment (see paragraph 34 above). What is more, the abandonment of the unacceptable idea of a husband being immune against prosecution for rape of his wife was in conformity not only with a civilised concept of marriage but also, and above all, with the fundamental objectives of the Convention, the very essence of which is respect for human dignity and human freedom" (§ 44).

Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3 ECHR)

The Kalderas Tziganes v. Germany, app. 7823/77, and the Kalderas Tziganes v. the Netherlands, app. 7824/77, ECommHR decision of 6 July 1977.
The German and Netherlands authorities refused to issue the applicants with identity documents, resulting in them not being able to settle freely in the territories of either of the States or to work legally. The decision declaring the applicants ineligible was taken because they had not exhausted the remedies under the national laws. However, the Commission stated that (§57): "It can be said from the Commission's decisions that the Convention does not as such guarantee a right to obtain identity papers, but the Commission recognises that in the circumstances unique to this case and considering the fact that the applicants are nomadic and possess other ethnic qualities, issues could arise in the context of Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention as regards respect for their human dignity and the way in which they were treated." (unofficial translation).
The Court deferred resorting to the principle of human dignity in the proceedings that concerned police violence. A first reference to this principle, within the scope of Article 3 ECHR, must be emphasised in the concurring opinion of Judge Meyer in Tomasi v. France (decision of 27 August 1992): "Any use of physical force in respect of a person deprived of his liberty which is not made strictly necessary as a result of his own conduct violates human dignity and must therefore be regarded as a breach of the right guaranteed under Article 3 of the Convention.
"At the most the severity of the treatment is relevant in determining, where appropriate, whether there has been torture."

In Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995 , the Court followed Judge Meyer's opinion in Tomasi, and referred expressly to human dignity as a basis for breach of Article 3 ECHR "in principle": "The Court emphasises that, in respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (…)" (§ 38).
The Court later confirmed this principle (cf. Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, and Assenov v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998).
Raninen v. Finland, app. 20972/92, ECommHR report of 24 October 1996. The Commission held that there had been a breach of Article 3, considering that the applicant's human dignity had been "diminished" by the fact that he had been handcuffed for two hours for no specific reason while in police custody, and he had appeared as such in public (use of physical force not absolutely necessary as regards a person deprived of his freedom). The Court did not follow the Commission, taking account of the intention of the person responsible for the act: "(…) Nor has the applicant established that the handcuffing was aimed at debasing or humiliating him. (...)" [unofficial translation] (16 December 1997, § 58)

D. v. UK, 2 May 1997.
The applicant, who was HIV positive and in the terminal phase of the illness, was subject to a deportation order once he had served his prison term.
The single statement of circumstances leading to a violation of human dignity led to the Court's conclusion that there had been a breach of Article 3 ECHR.
The Court, after emphasising that "aliens who have served their prison sentences and are subject to expulsion cannot in principle claim any entitlement to remain in the territory of a Contracting State in order to continue to benefit from medical, social or other forms of assistance provided by the expelling State during their stay in prison", held that "There is a serious danger that the conditions of adversity which await him in St Kitts will further reduce his already limited life expectancy and subject him to acute mental and physical suffering". The Court thus concludes that "in the very exceptional circumstances of this case and given the compelling humanitarian considerations at stake, it must be concluded that the implementation of the decision to remove the applicant would be a violation of Article 3".

Kudla v. Pologne, 26 October 2000.
In this case, the Court established the principle of the prisoner's right to prison conditions that are compatible with respect for human dignity: "(…) under [Article 3 of the Convention] the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance. (…)" (§ 94)

C.J.E.C.
The Community judge has incorporated fundamental rights into the general principles of right in which respect is assured (Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 17 December 1970, case. no. 11/70).
Article 6 TEU provides that the European Union "shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (…) and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law".

Christos Konstantinidis, 30 March 1993, Case 168/91.
Advocate General M.F.G. Jacobs' conclusions expressly demonstrate the emergence of the principle of respect for human dignity in the community legal order.
In concluding his reasons, he states that "the constitutional traditions of the Member States in general allow for the conclusion that there exists a principle according to which the State must respect not only the individual's physical well-being, but also his dignity, moral integrity and sense of personal identity."

P v. S and Cornwall County Council, 30 April 1996, Case 13/94.
In a case concerning the dismissal of a transsexual in the United Kingdom, the Court was seized of an application for a finding of prejudice based on the interpretation of Council directive 76/207/EEC, of 9 February 1976, on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions. The Court, following the conclusions of Advocate General Tesauro, gives the following interpretation: "Accordingly, the scope of the directive cannot be confined simply to discrimination based on the fact that a person is of one or other sex. In view of its purpose and the nature of the rights which it seeks to safeguard, the scope of the directive is also such as to apply to discrimination arising, as in this case, from the gender reassignment of the person concerned.
"Such discrimination is based, essentially if not exclusively, on the sex of the person concerned. Where a person is dismissed on the ground that he or she intends to undergo, or has undergone, gender reassignment, he or she is treated unfavourably by comparison with persons of the sex to which he or she was deemed to belong before undergoing gender reassignment." (§§ 20 and 21). The Court adds the reference to respect for human dignity: "To tolerate such discrimination would be tantamount, as regards such a person, to a failure to respect the dignity and freedom to which he or she is entitled, and which the Court has a duty to safeguard" (§ 22), concluding that "Dismissal of such a person must therefore be regarded as contrary to Article 5(1) of the directive."
As regards transsexualism, the case refers to case-law from the European Court of Human Rights.

Omega, 14 October 2004, Case 36/02.
The German authorities prohibited the applicant company from operating a laserdrome where players try to "kill" other players by firing a laser beam at sensory tags placed on their jackets. The applicant argued that because the game was lawful in the United Kingdom, it had to be authorised in Germany on the basis of freedom to provide services in the European Union.
"(…) the Community legal order undeniably strives to ensure respect for human dignity as a general principle of law. There can therefore be no doubt that the objective of protecting human dignity is compatible with Community law, it being immaterial in that respect that, in Germany, the principle of respect for human dignity has a particular status as an independent fundamental right.
Since both the Community and its Member States are required to respect fundamental rights, the protection of those rights is a legitimate interest which, in principle, justifies a restriction of the obligations imposed by Community law, even under a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty such as the freedom to provide services (…).
However, measures which restrict the freedom to provide services may be justified on public policy grounds only if they are necessary for the protection of the interests which they are intended to guarantee and only in so far as those objectives cannot be attained by less restrictive measures (…).
It is not indispensable in that respect for the restrictive measure issued by the authorities of a Member State to correspond to a conception shared by all Member States as regards the precise way in which the fundamental right or legitimate interest is to be protected." (§§ 34-37).
Community law does not preclude an economic activity consisting of the commercial exploitation of games simulating acts of homicide from being made subject to a national prohibition measure adopted on grounds of protecting public policy by reason of the fact that that activity is an affront to human dignity.

Pupino decision of 16 June 2005, case C-105/03.
Application for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, as regards criminal proceedings against Mrs Pupino, suspected of maltreating her students aged younger than five years. The issue was about the possibility, within the meaning of the Framework Decision, to authorise under-aged children, who, as those in the case at bar, allege that they are victims of maltreatment, to make their deposition according to the methods that allow for an appropriate level of protection to be guaranteed, outside open court and before the proceedings begin.
“Articles 2 and 8(4) of the Framework Decision require each Member State to make every effort to ensure that victims are treated with due respect for their personal dignity during proceedings, to ensure that particularly vulnerable victims benefit from specific treatment best suited to their circumstances, and to ensure that where there is a need to protect victims, particularly those most vulnerable, from the effects of giving evidence in open court, victims may, by decision taken by the court, be entitled to testify in a manner enabling that objective to be achieved, by any appropriate means compatible with its basic legal principles.”
“The Framework Decision does not define the concept of a victim's vulnerability for the purposes of Articles 2(2) and 8(4). However, independently of whether a victim's minority is as a general rule sufficient to classify such a victim as particularly vulnerable within the meaning of the Framework Decision, it cannot be denied that where, as in this case, young children claim to have been maltreated, and maltreated, moreover, by a teacher, those children are suitable for such classification having regard in particular to their age and to the nature and consequences of the offences of which they consider themselves to have been victims, with a view to benefiting from the specific protection required by the provisions of the Framework Decision referred to above" (§§ 52 and 53).
The Court holds:
“Articles 2, 3 and 8(4) of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the national court must be able to authorise young children, who, as in this case, claim to have been victims of maltreatment, to give their testimony in accordance with arrangements allowing those children to be guaranteed an appropriate level of protection, for example outside the trial and before it takes place.
“The national court is required to take into consideration all the rules of national law and to interpret them, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Framework Decision.”

 Constitution of the Kingdom of Belgium
Article 23
Everyone has the right to lead a life in conformity with human dignity.
To this end, the laws, decrees, and rulings alluded to in Article 134 guarantee, taking into account corresponding obligations, economic, social, and cultural rights, and determine the conditions for exercising them.
These rights include notably:
1) the right to employment and to the free choice of a professional activity in the framework of a general employment policy, aimed among others at ensuring a level of employment that is as stable and high as possible, the right to fair terms of employment and to fair remuneration, as well as the right to information, consultation and collective negotiation;
2) the right to social security, to health care and to social, medical, and legal aid;
3) the right to have decent accommodation;
4) the right to enjoy the protection of a healthy environment:
5) the right to enjoy cultural and social fulfillment.

 Constitution of the Czech Republic
We, the citizens of the Czech Republic in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia, at this time of the reconstitution of an independent Czech State, (...)
resolved to protect and develop their natural, cultural, material and spiritual heritage, resolved to heed all the well-proven tenets of law-abiding state,
have adopted through our freely elected representatives this Constitution of the Czech Republic

 Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany
Article 1 - Human Dignity
(1) Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German People therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every human community, of
peace, and of justice in the world. (...)

 Constitution of the Republic of Estonia
Article 10
« The rights, freedoms and duties set out in this Chapter shall not preclude other rights, freedoms and duties which arise from the spirit of the Constitution or are in accordance therewith, and conform to the principles of human dignity and of a state based on social justice, democracy, and the rule of law. »

 Constitution of the Hellenic Republic
Article 7 - Nullum Crimen Sine Lege
(...) (2) Torture and any kind of bodily ill-treatment, injury to health, or the use of psychological pressure or any other offence against human dignity are prohibited and shall be punished according to the law. (...)
Article 106 - [State and Economy
(...) (2) Private enterprise may not be exercised in any way detrimental to liberty, human dignity, and the national economy.

 Constitution of the Kingdom of Spain
Preamble
The Spanish Nation, (...) proclaims its will to: (...)
Promote the progress of culture and of the economy to ensure a dignified quality of life for all. (...)
Article 10
1) The dignity of the person, the inviolable rights which are inherent, the free development of the personality, the respect for the law and for the rights of others are the foundation of political order and social peace. (...)
Article 47
All Spaniards have the right to enjoy decent and adequate housing. (...)

 Constitution of Ireland
We, the people of Éire,(...) seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, (...)

 Constitution of the Italian Republic
Article 3 - Equality
(1) All citizens possess an equal social status and are equal before the law, without distinction as to sex, race, language, religion, political opinions, and personal or social conditions.
(2) It is the duty of the Republic to remove all economic and social obstacles which, by limiting the freedom and equality of citizens, prevent the full development of the individual and the participation of all workers in the political, economic, and social organization of the country.
Article 41 - Freedom of Enterprise
(1) Private economic enterprise shall be free.
(2) It shall not be carried out against the common good or in a way that may harm public security, liberty, and human dignity. (...)

Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Chapter VIII – Fundamental Rights
“95. The State shall protect human honour and dignity. (…)”

Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
Article 21
“The person of a human being shall be inviolable.
The dignity of the human being shall be protected by law.
It shall be prohibited to torture, injure a human being, degrade his dignity, treat him in a cruel manner, as well as to establish punishments of such kind. (…)”

Constitution of the Republic of Hungary
Article 54
“(1) In the Republic of Hungary everyone has the inherent right to life and to human dignity. No one shall be arbitrarily denied of these rights.(…)”

Republic of Austria - Federal Constitutional Laws
(...)(4)Whoever is arrested or detained shall be treated with respect for human dignity and with all feasible personal consideration and may be subjected only to such restrictions as are commensurate with the purpose of the detention or necessary for the maintenance of security and order in the place of his/her detention.

Constitution of the Republic of Poland
PREAMBLE
Having regard for the existence and future of our Homeland, Which recovered, in 1989, the possibility of a sovereign and democratic determination of its fate, We, the Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic, (...) respect to the inherent dignity of the person, his or her right to freedom, the obligation of solidarity with others, and respect for these principles as the unshakeable foundation of the Republic of Poland.
Article 30
The inherent and inalienable dignity of the person shall constitute a source of freedoms and rights of persons and citizens. It shall be inviolable. The respect and protection thereof shall be the obligation of public authorities.
Article 41
« (...) Anyone deprived of liberty shall be treated in a humane manner (...) »

  Constitution of the Portuguese Republic
Article 1- Portuguese Republic
Portugal is a sovereign Republic, that is based upon the dignity of the human person and the will of the people and is committed to building a free and just society united in its common purposes.
Article 13 - Principle of equality
1. All citizens have the same social rank and are equal before the law.(...)
Article 26 - Other personal rights
(...) 2. The law shall establish effective guarantees against the misuse, or use that is contrary to human dignity, of information concerning individuals or families.
3. The law shall guarantee the personal dignity and genetic identity of the human being, particularly in the creation, development and use of technology and in scientific experimentation. (...)
Article 59 - Rights of workers
1. All workers, regardless of age, sex, race, nationality, place of origin, religion or political or ideological convictions, are entitled to :
a. Remuneration for their work, according to its quantity, nature and quality, on the principle of equal pay for equal work, so as to guarantee to them an appropriate livelihood;
b. The organisation of work in keeping with human dignity and personal self-fulfilment while reconciling the needs of vocational activity and family life; (...)

Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
Article 21
Respect for human personality and dignity shall be guaranteed in criminal and in all other legal proceedings, as well as during the deprivation of liberty and enforcement of punitive sanctions.
Violence of any form on any person whose liberty has been restricted in any way is prohibited, as is the use of any form of coercion in obtaining confessions and statements.
Article 34
Everyone has the right to personal dignity and safety.

Constitution of the Slovak Republic
Article 12
(1) All human beings are free and equal in dignity and in rights. Their fundamental rights and freedoms are sanctioned, inalienable, imprescriptible and
irreversible. (...)
Article 19
(1) Everyone shall have the right to maintain and protect his or her dignity,
honour, reputation and good name. (...)

 Constitution of Finland
Article 1- The Constitution
(...) The constitution of Finland is established in this constitutional act. The constitution shall guarantee the inviolability of human dignity and the freedom and rights of the individual and promote justice in society. (...)
Article 7 -The right to life, personal liberty and integrity
(...) No one shall be sentenced to death, tortured or otherwise treated in a manner violating human dignity. (...)
Article 19 - The right to social security
Those who cannot obtain the means necessary for a life of dignity have the right to receive indispensable subsistence and care. (...)

 Constitution of the Kingdom of Sweden
Article 2.
Every Swedish citizen shall be guaranteed the right to communicate information on any subject whatsoever to authors or other originators, editors, editorial offices, news agencies and enterprises for the production of technical recordings for publication in radio programmes, or such recordings. He shall also have the right to procure information on any subject whatsoever for such communication or publication. No restriction of these rights shall be permitted other than such as follows from this Fundamental Law.

This list of NGOs is subject to change. It is provided for information purposes only and is not exhaustive. The NGOs listed are those with activities related to one of the fundamental rights protected by the Charter and that are active at European Union level or in the Member States.

European Association for Human Rights Protection (FIDH-AE)

The European Association for Human Rights Protection (FIDH-AE), associate member of the International Federation for Human Rights Protection (FIDH), brings together leagues and associations for protection of human rights in European Union countries. It works toward highlighting rules defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights before institutional and political players in the European Union so that the fundamental rights of Union residents that are recognised for their universal, indivisible and effective nature, and so that the rights are assembled by and for the citizens.
The FIDH-AE calls for the existence and recognition of a citizen’s opposition force, and affirms its commitment to civic movement in Europe.

The aims of the FIDH-AE are:

• A democratic Europe in which citizens have a real power
• A Europe grounded on respect of freedom of each and every person
• A Europe that asserts its concern for social equality
• A Europe that respects the environment and is engaged in sustainable development
• A Europe without discrimination
• A Europe open to the world taking into account its international responsibilities

FIDH-AE means of action are:

• the publication of an annual report on the situation of human rights within the European Union
• statements and press releases when European Union policies run contrary to human rights
• collective actions and European networks fighting for respect of human rights
• attending European meetings such as the European Social Forum

Contact
E-mail : fidh_ae@yahoo.fr
Telephone: +32 2 209 63 84 (Brussels)

ATD Fourth World

The ATD Fourth World movement was founded by Father Joseph Wresinski in 1957 to organise the fight against poverty and social exclusion. Today it is included in sections in most European countries and around the world.
ATD Fourth World asks for recognition of discrimination caused by extreme poverty as regards access to fundamental rights.
The Movement has three major lines of action:

• grass-roots presence and involvement among very poor families, in activities aimed at giving access to decent housing, regular income, care, education and knowledge, and exercise of public life;
• research into and knowledge of poverty working with very poor families to analyse the mechanisms of extreme poverty and exclusion, and to find solutions;
• campaigning for and representing Fourth World families at local, national and international levels.

• 17 October, World day to overcome extreme poverty
• Permanent Forum on Extreme Poverty in the World
• ATD Fourth World movement quarterly review

ATD Fourth World has a general consultative status at the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
ATD Fourth World is a member of the Platform of European Social NGOs, whose objective is to develop and consolidate the civil dialogue between European NGOs and European Union institutions.

Tokyo declaration, adopted during the 15th International Conference of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, held in Tokyo from 30 September to 3 October 2004.

Contact
E-mail: atd.europe@tiscali.be
Telephone: + 32 2 647 99 00 (Brussels)
Mouvement ATD Fourth World
information@atd-quartmonde.org

World Federation of Right to Die Societies

The World Federation of Right To Die Societies was founded in 1980. It has 37 member organisations in 23 countries, among them the French-speaking “Associations pour le Droit de Mourir dans la Dignité.” (ADMD) The Federation:

• disseminates information and teaching materials on euthanasia, physician-assisted dying and other subjects related to the right to die in dignity;
• promotes ties and cooperation between member organisations;
• encourages international conferences on death and dying;
• provides support to groups and individuals interested in setting up a similar organisation in countries where such societies do not exist;
• responds to requests from groups, schools and individuals for information on the right to die in dignity.

Tokyo declaration, adopted during the 15th International Conference of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, held in Tokyo from 30 September to 3 October 2004.

The web site of the World Federation of Right To Die Societies includes:

• international news updates on the right to die in dignity, physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia and on end-of-life issues in general;
• an international review of court orders on these subjects;
• a listing of events worldwide (press releases and conferences, seminars, etc.);
• Links to national member associations that include contact details and web site addresses where possible;
• Information on and links to related subjects: palliative care, prevention of suicide, etc.

Contact:
E-mail: worldfed@pacbell.net
Telephone: 1 + 415 332 1810 (USA)

Other resolutions

Resolution A4-0153/1998, of the 13 May 1998 embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Recommendation concerning the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services (COM(97)0570 - A4-0153/98).
The European Parliament approves the Commission’s proposal and underlines the facts that the authors of illegal messages are scattered geographically and that it is difficult to ensure effective execution of protective measures make all effort at regulating distribution and protection of receipt very complex. Self-regulation (cooperation between industries and access and service providers) should be supplemented with an active government policy. It favours a system common to the Member States that identifies illegal and harmful content. It also suggests extending Europol’s competence, which could be responsible, in the context of the fight against computer crime, for protection against publication of messages with illegal content.

Recommandation A5-0284/2001, of the 6 September 2001 on the Strategy for Creating a Safer Information Society by Improving the Security of Information Infrastructures and Combating Computer-related Crime (2001/2070(COS)) (A5-0284/2001).
Following the Commission’s Communication of 26 January 2001 on the fight against computer-related crime (COM (2000) 890), the European Parliament has drawn up a series of recommendations aimed at introducing, at Union level, a coherent strategy that preserves the freedom of world-wide networks and defines the responsibilities in matters of combating computer-related crime (trade in human beings, money laundering, child pornography, terrorism). The European Parliament supports the Commission’s proposal to create a European forum of computer-related crime, involving the law enforcement authorities, Internet service providers, telecommunication companies, civil liberties organisations, consumer representatives, and data protection authorities. It would also like to encourage cooperation in criminal law and scientific and technical research to implement such preventive and protective solutions as encryption. The European Parliament also requests that a European certification standard be developed to inform and protect consumers against computer crime.