EUROPA - EU law and publications - EUR-Lex - EUR-Lex - 62009CA0236 - EN - Case C-236/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium)) — Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v Conseil des ministres (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fundamental rights — Combating discrimination — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to and supply of goods and services — Insurance premiums and benefits — Actu ...[+++]arial factors — Sex as a factor in the assessment of insurance risks — Private life assurance contracts — Directive 2004/113/EC — Article 5(2) — Derogation not subject to any temporal limitation — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 21 and 23 — Invalidity) // Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium)) — Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v Conseil des ministres // (Case C-236/09) - ( // (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fundamental rights - Combating discrimination - Equal treatment for men and women - Access to and supply of goods and services - Insurance premiums and benefits - Actuarial factors - Sex as a factor in the assessment of insurance risks - Private life assurance contracts - Directive 2004/113/EC - Article 5(2) - Derogation not subject to any temporal limitation - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 21 and 23 - Invalidity)

29. Deplores documented human rights violations by the armed forces of India, especially if the incidents of killing and rape continue in an atmosphere of impunity; notes with concern that the NHRC has no power under its statutes to investigate human rights abuses perpetrated by the Indian security forces; is nevertheless encouraged by the NHRC's recommendation – which is being observed – that the army nominate senior military officers to oversee the implementation of fundamental human rights and the rule of law in their military units; notes the commitment given by the government of India in September 2005 that human rights violation ...[+++]s will not be tolerated; and urges the Lok Sabha to consider amending the Human Rights Protection Act in order to allow the NHRC to investigate independently allegations of abuse by members of the armed forces;

25. Urges that investigations be continued to clarify the role of US soldiers, who were part of the NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR), in the abduction and transfer to Guantánamo Bay of six Bosnian nationals and/or residents of Algerian origin, contrary to a binding interim decision by the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina and despite the decision by the Bosnian Supreme Court to release the suspects, as testified by Manfred Nowak, who was a member of the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time; calls for the possible role of the Bosnian government in this case to be examined further; highlights the need ...[+++] for more information on the possible involvement of NATO and the United Nations International Police Task Force (IPTF) in this connection;

25. Urges that investigations be continued to clarify the role of US soldiers, who were part of the NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR), in the abduction and transfer to Guantánamo Bay of six Bosnian nationals and/or residents of Algerian origin, contrary to a binding interim decision by the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina and despite the decision by the Bosnian Supreme Court to release the suspects, as testified by Manfred Nowak, who was a member of the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time; calls for the possible role of the Bosnian government in this case to be examined further; highlights the need ...[+++] for more information on the possible involvement of NATO and the United Nations International Police Task Force (IPTF) in this connection;

(EN)The Commission is aware that on 12 May the European Court of Human Rights delivered its final judgment in the case of Öcalan v. Turkey whereby the Grand Chamber made the same findings of violation and non-violation of the European Convention on Human Rights as the Chamber judgment of 12 March 2003.

In the latter case, however, use of the provision was seriously limited by the judgment of the House of Lords concerning compliance with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[11]