| 词条 | Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa |
| 释义 |
| name = Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa | court = Constitutional Court of South Africa | image = | imagesize = | imagelink = | imagealt = | caption = | full name = Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another | date decided = {{start date|2002|67|25|df=y}} | citations = {{cite SAFLII |court=ZACC |year=2002 |num=18 |parallelcite=2002 (9) BCLR 986 (CC), 2002 (6) SA 1 (CC)}} | transcripts = | judges = Chaskalson CJ, Langa DCJ, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Ngcobo, O'Regan & Sachs JJ, Du Plessis & Skweyiya AJJ | number of judges = 10 | decision by = Madala | prior actions = | appealed from = Transvaal Provincial Division | appealed to = | subsequent actions = {{cite SAFLII |court=ZACC |year=2003 |num=2 |date=17 March 2003 |courtname=Constitutional Court}} | related actions = | opinions = | keywords = | italic title = force }}Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another is a 2002 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which determined that the same-sex life partner of a judge was entitled to the same financial benefits available to the opposite-sex spouse of a judge. The case, which challenged the Judges' Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, 1989, was brought by Kathy Satchwell, an openly lesbian judge of the Transvaal Provincial Division (now known as the Gauteng Division) of the High Court.[1] The court ruled unanimously that the law violated the equality clause of the Bill of Rights, which forbids unfair discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The judgment therefore amended the law to extend the spousal benefits to same-sex partners who had undertaken "reciprocal duties of support". Although the holding, strictly speaking, was limited to judges and their partners, it was seen as having a wider effect, with the director of the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project describing it as "yet another step toward the formal legal recognition of same-sex relationships".[1] In 2003 it was realised that a new version of the act (the Judges' Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, 2001) had been passed and, due to a drafting error, still included the former discriminatory language. The Constitutional Court granted an order applying the reasoning of its earlier ruling to the new act.[2] References1. ^1 {{cite news |title=ConCourt rules in favour of gays |newspaper=News24 |agency=SAPA |date=25 July 2002 |url=http://www.news24.com/xArchive/Archive/ConCourt-rules-in-favour-of-gays-20020725 |accessdate=1 August 2011}} 2. ^{{cite news |title=Court ruling sets it straight |newspaper=News24 |agency=SAPA |date=17 March 2003 |url=http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Court-ruling-sets-it-straight-20030317 |accessdate=1 August 2011}} External links
6 : Constitutional Court of South Africa cases|South African LGBT rights case law|2002 in LGBT history|2002 in case law|2002 in South African law|Same-sex union case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。