This paper examines the possibility that the particular situation of women in rural areas could be recognized in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as a type of specific discrimination. Although the Court has not made any express pronouncements on this subject, the paper reviews its previous doctrine on gender equality and rurality. But the analysis of greatest interest is the one that focuses on the doctrine of openness to the positions of other human rights instruments. From this, it would be possible the effectiveness by this way of the guidelines that CEDAW has been carrying out in various instruments in relation to women living in rural areas.
Este trabajo analiza la posibilidad de que la situación particular de las mujeres de las zonas rurales sea reconocida en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos como un tipo de discriminación específica. Si bien el Tribunal no ha realizado ningún pronunciamiento expreso al respecto, el trabajo revisa su doctrina previa en materia de igualdad de género y ruralidad. Pero el análisis de mayor interés es el que se centra en la doctrina de apertura a los posicionamientos de otros instrumentos de protección de los derechos humanos. A partir de esto, sería posible la eficacia por esta vía de las orientaciones que la CEDAW ha venido realizando en diversos instrumentos en relación con las mujeres que residen en zonas rurales.
European institutions have recently been paying particular attention to the specific difficulties of rural areas and the depopulation problems affecting part of European territory (European Commission)
The definition of rural areas varies from country to country, with a minimum population size often being used for this purpose, which leads to the concept being unclear. Some countries use indicators such as the main employment sector in the area or the availability of infrastructure and services (
On the other hand, studies on discrimination and gender inequality are numerous and have led public authorities to adopt policies intended to reverse these situations. However, few scientific studies have examined the reality of women living in rural areas, taking into account that both gender and rurality involve intersecting sources of discrimination. This reality places women in rural areas in a specific situation: policies targeting gender equality are not as effective for them as they are for urban women, and policies targeting rural areas and depopulation do not address their specificities. There are indeed some initiatives focused on the situation of women in rural areas, but these generally deal with the issue of women’s access to the primary sector, as farmers and livestock producers, and their access to land
From a legal point of view, any examination should go beyond describing reality and focus on how barriers to access to services and resources have a direct impact on the extent to which the fundamental rights of women living in rural areas are guaranteed. We thus examined the reality of rural areas in the Spanish region of Extremadura, and the data show that women living in rural areas have specific difficulties that restrict the guarantee of their rights
In the context of that research, this paper examines how rural women’s reality of specific discrimination could be considered as such by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The ECtHR has not made any specific pronouncements on this issue, but its doctrine in other areas suggests the possibility that it might find this to be a specific discrimination, if the situation arose. It should be borne in mind that in Europe, the ECtHR is the instrument of last resort for protecting human rights when all national means have failed and there has been a violation of the rights provided under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Moreover, a recognition of a violation of rights by the ECtHR has an essential legally binding force in compelling States to progress in ensuring and protecting rights.
This is why we are investigating the ECtHR’s own case law to establish whether the position of women living in rural areas, with the limitations they experience in the material guarantee of their rights, could be considered a specific violation of Article 14 ECHR. For that, we pay special attention to the use that the ECtHR has made of the Recommendations and Observations of the CEDAW in this area, bearing in mind that it is the international benchmark on gender equality and, therefore, a fundamental tool of analysis for the ECHR.
We shall now examine ECtHR case law with regard to three key issues: gender-based discrimination, already widely recognized by the ECtHR; the rural environment as a space with material limitations, tentatively observed in a limited number of pronouncements; and the ECtHR’s specific recognition of the convergence of a range of sources of discrimination placing individuals in a specific situation.
The ECtHR’s tools for determining discrimination incompatible with the ECHR are Article 14 of and Protocol 12 to the Convention. Article 14 of the Convention does not establish a general principle of equality; rather, it prohibits discrimination in a general way which must be connected to other rights covered by the Convention (
The first time the ECtHR found that gender-based discrimination had occurred was in
Without attempting to be exhaustive, we can refer to some of the questions in which the ECtHR has found that gender-based discrimination incompatible with the Convention had taken place, against both men and women. This has occurred in relation to civic duties imposed on men but not on women
A tentative move towards including indirect discrimination can also be observed in the ECtHR’s case law. While indirect discrimination has been considered on many occasions by the Court of Justice of the European Union, it has not been considered to the same extent by the ECtHR (
Recently, the ECtHR has also tentatively incorporated consideration of affirmative action measures
Lastly, in this brief review of the ECtHR’s case law on gender-based discrimination, it is appropriate to mention intersectionality
As we have seen in the introduction, what is considered rural is different in each tool used and in the regulations of each State. However, we can affirm that there are common elements that took part of what rurality is, understood as a series of geographical and demographic characteristics and a particular social, political and cultural structure. These common elements are fundamentally the existence of problems in access to basic services, a high economic dependence on work in the countryside, declining population trends and a series of stereotypes and roles that influence the development of the lives of women living in these territories (
ECtHR doctrine recognizing rurality as a source of inequality is not abundant, but we did find pronouncements where the ECtHR recognizes that barriers to access to services and resources exist in rural areas. We carried out an analysis of case law in which rurality was mentioned and violations of Article 14 ECHR were assessed.
We found a range of ECtHR considerations on rurality that emphasized that the reality of rural areas is specific and recognized some of its characteristics. The ECtHR has taken rurality into account particularly in cases related to hunting
States have also attempted to use rurality to justify particular types of discrimination that were not accepted by the ECtHR. Examples include women being prohibited from accessing security work in rural areas
Although later we will focus on the adoption of international criteria related to women’s rights, the ECtHR has also taken into account criteria established by international organizations and instruments for the protection of rights that expressly refer to the rural environment: with regard to the right to water, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water
The ECtHR has also found that there are particular accessibility problems in rural areas. In this respect, we can highlight the case of
Thus, despite not recognizing rurality as a possible source of discrimination, the ECtHR has nevertheless taken into account some of its characteristics, such as depopulation or barriers to access to services.
Another way of incorporating the specific situation of women in rural areas and their particular barriers to exercising their rights into the ECtHR’s case law would be through the incorporation of international standards. While it is true that the ECtHR was already taking into account international instruments for the protection of rights before this point, in
In that case, a Turkish trade union of civil servants had negotiated a collective agreement with a local authority. When the local authority failed to fulfil some of its obligations, the trade union brought proceedings against it. The court of first instance found in favour of the trade union, but the Court of Cassation quashed that decision, denying the trade union’s right to undertake collective bargaining. The Audit Court subsequently ordered union members to repay the benefits they had secured under the agreement. In so doing, the Turkish higher courts were failing to take into account the ILO conventions, ratified by Turkey, and their interpretation. The union made an application to the ECtHR for possible violation of Article 11 ECHR on freedom of assembly and association.
Under the title “Interpretation of the Convention in the Light of Other International Instruments” and in paragraphs 60 to 86 of the judgment, the ECtHR sets out its interpretative methodology, based on Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluding that
85. The Court, in defining the meaning of terms and notions in the text of the Convention, can and must take into account elements of international law other than the Convention, the interpretation of such elements by competent organs, and the practice of European States reflecting their common values. The consensus emerging from specialised international instruments and from the practice of Contracting States may constitute a relevant consideration for the Court when it interprets the provisions of the Convention in specific cases.
86. In this context, it is not necessary for the respondent State to have ratified the entire collection of instruments that are applicable in respect of the precise subject matter of the case concerned. It will be sufficient for the Court that the relevant international instruments denote a continuous evolution in the norms and principles applied in international law or in the domestic law of the majority of member States of the Council of Europe and show, in a precise area, that there is common ground in modern societies […].
Throughout its argument, the ECtHR recognizes the specific role of the ILO with regard to labour issues, which would also apply to other UN organizations such as (in the matter of particular interest to us) CEDAW (
Finally, looking at the ECtHR’s subsequent case law, it is evident that the methodology it explained has been consolidated in other cases
As has already been observed, CEDAW is the most important international reference text where women’s rights are concerned. Having briefly exposed the ECtHR’s doctrine on the issue at hand, it is worth now pay attention to the positions taken by the CEDAW on the matter. It is essential to refer expressly to this text when examining the international standards used by the ECtHR in relation to the inequality of women in rural areas.
CEDAW is the first international treaty specifically about the rights of women around the world. It entered into force on 3 September 1981, after having been adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979, by resolution 34/180 of 18 December. It is well known that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), proclaimed by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, is one of the landmarks of the twentieth century, marking a “before” and “after” in the history of rights. CEDAW seems to have attracted less attention, yet it represents an unprecedented paradigm shift in the conception of rights. Human rights are characterized by the idea of universality, which has been questioned over the years and continues to be of considerable interest to legal doctrine (
It must be borne in mind that the UDHR emerged in a patriarchal context in which androcentrism was the “ideological substrate” (
However, it began to be realized that, despite this formal recognition, the human rights system remained inadequate with regard to women’s rights. In 1967, the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women was adopted by the UN, at the request of the Commission on the Status of Women, which had impulsed its adoption four years earlier. Despite being a mere declaration, it represented a turning point, because it promoted debate on the need for monitoring tools (
CEDAW is an international treaty that is legally binding on the States that have ratified it, currently 189 in number
Article 17 CEDAW gives the Convention a Committee, defined as the body responsible for considering the progress made in its implementation and consisting of twenty-three experts in women’s rights. CEDAW is supervised and implemented through the following mechanisms: general recommendations, country reports, concluding observations, shadow reports and the Optional Protocol.
General recommendations are one of CEDAW’s basic tools, provided for in Article 21
We are grouping these two mechanisms together because they form part of the CEDAW Committee’s evaluation procedure under Article 18 of the Convention
Shadow reports are documents created by civil society actors, NGOs, feminist or human rights organizations, associations, foundations and social movements, to share their perceptions of the women’s rights situation in the country where they are located, as an alternative to the information provided by governmental bodies in the official reports from each State Party (
CEDAW’s Optional Protocol
Individual or collective communications against a State: Under Article 2 of the Optional Protocol, any individual or group of individuals under the jurisdiction of a State Party that believes their rights have been violated by that State or any other may present a communication to the CEDAW Committee. Communications may also be presented in the name of another person, with their consent; if the person has not given consent, a justification must be given for acting without consent. The CEDAW Committee has the legal authority to contact the State Party in question to examine the facts and demand the adoption of interim measures to avoid irreparable damage to the victim or victims. The procedure includes the possibility of carrying out investigations on the State Party’s territory.
Ex officio actions by the CEDAW Committee: Under Article 8, the Committee may act ex officio if it receives credible reports of serious violations, including the possibility of carrying out investigations on the State Party’s territory.
We can identify four main ways in which the CEDAW Committee has incorporated rurality:
firstly, through Article 14 of the Convention, which is dedicated exclusively to the issue of rural women;
secondly, through cross-cutting references in general recommendations and concluding observations that have an issue other than rurality as their main topic;
thirdly, through General Recommendation No. 34 specifically on the rights of rural women;
and lastly, through alluding to rurality in concluding observations to States.
Article 14 of CEDAW is the first example of recognition in an international treaty of the issue of rurality as a factor to take into account with regard to observing and ensuring women’s rights. It integrates the territorial perspective, or at least the part of it represented by the urban-rural dichotomy, into the body of articles. The article declares that States Parties must take into account the particular problems faced by rural women. Although it does not characterize rural women directly, it does refer to them playing “significant roles […] in the economic survival of their families” and to unpaid work, which we take to refer to the domestic and caring work mainly carried out by women. It says that States Parties must take appropriate measures to ensure the implementation of the provisions of CEDAW in rural areas, emphasizing the following themes:
the participation of women in “the elaboration and implementation of development planning at all levels”;
“access to adequate health care facilities, including information, counselling and services in family planning”;
direct access to social security programmes;
access to literacy and being able to “obtain all types of training and education, formal and non-formal”;
the right to “organize self-help groups and co-operatives in order to obtain equal access to economic opportunities through employment or self-employment”;
the right to “participate in all community activities”;
“access to agricultural credit and loans, marketing facilities, appropriate technology and equal treatment in land and agrarian reform as well as in land resettlement schemes”;
the right to “enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to housing, sanitation, electricity and water supply, transport and communications”.
From an initial reading of the text, we can see that this is a very general precept that pays particular attention to the issue of land and access to basic services. Given the data on rural women held by UN Women (
As mentioned earlier, the general recommendations discuss particular themes related to women’s rights around the world. Before the publication of the General Recommendation of 2016, only a few of the thirty-eight general recommendations issued up to that point had made any mention of the particularities of rural women (
General Recommendation No. 16 (1991), on unpaid women workers in rural and urban family enterprises;
General Recommendation No. 19 (1992), on violence against women;
General Recommendation No. 24 (1999), on women and health;
General Recommendation No. 27 (2010), on older women and protection of their human rights;
General Recommendation No. 31 (2014), on the rights of girls;
General Recommendation No. 33 (2015), on women’s access to justice;
General Recommendation No. 34 (2016), on the rights of rural women (which will be our particular focus);
General Recommendation No. 35 (2017), on gender-based violence, updating General Recommendation No. 19;
General Recommendation No. 36 (2017), on the right of girls and women to education;
General Recommendation No. 37 (2018), on gender-related dimensions of disaster risk reduction in the context of climate change;
General Recommendation No. 38 (2020), on trafficking in women and girls in the context of global migration.
As we can see, since the General Recommendation of 2016, all subsequent recommendations have included rurality in their analysis and proposals. Up to then, rurality had been included in relation to the main topic addressed in each recommendation, basically covering paid work and social benefits; gender-based violence in rural environments; problems with health care; the socio-economic situations of girls and older women and their difficulties in accessing computers and education, among other issues. From reading these recommendations as a whole, we can likewise identify a profound interrelation between all the problems that have their common denominator in difficulties with accessing public resources and services, including significant problems with transport and mobility.
A review of the general recommendations shows us that rurality was present in some of them, though mentioned only occasionally and often very briefly. Furthermore, rurality was addressed only as a side issue to the main topic of the recommendation. General Recommendation No. 34, on the rights of rural women, in a way synthesizes everything that preceded it, carries out assessments and introduces objectives. We should note that this recommendation focuses mainly on rural women in developing countries. However, it also mentions that discrimination due to living in rural areas occurs around the world, and it points to the following problems, in addition to those already mentioned:
“[…] systematic and persistent barriers to the full enjoyment of their human rights”: States do not specifically address the reality of these women. There is a lack of legislation, public policies, budget, investment and correct assessments of their situation. As a result, rural women experience poverty and social exclusion. Gender indicators show that “rural women fare worse than rural men and urban men and women”. Of particular concern are problems of access to land and natural resources; the burden of unpaid domestic work; gender roles and stereotypes; inequality within the household; and the lack of infrastructure and services;
rural women being consistently excluded from leadership and decision-making positions, in the public and political environment, as well as constantly being questioned. Political violence, from the symbolic to the most extreme, acts as a disincentive around the world (
the widespread discrimination that women experience in access to land, natural resources and food, despite playing an essential role in agriculture;
the issue of women with disabilities, including the fact that they experience particular difficulties in rural areas due to a lack of awareness of their reality and their needs.
In response to all of this, the General Recommendation introduces overarching State Party obligations, including a non-discriminatory legal framework, guaranteeing access to justice, integrating a gender perspective into public policies and law, and providing training to all those involved in the justice system and to civil servants.
As CEDAW concluding observations are a very specific mechanism for evaluating the situation of rural women in the various States Parties, they give a range of messages addressing different issues. They address in detail the concrete problems of a particular State, which renders them a highly effective instrument. In spite of the particularity of each case, if we bear in mind that the general recommendations are in a sense the result of the experience acquired through evaluating States Parties by means of country reports and shadow reports, we can say that the problems of rural women around the world are very similar, with differences of degree as a function of cultural, social, political and economic issues, which require exhaustive analysis based on a deep understanding of each concrete reality.
As we have seen, CEDAW has extensively addressed the specific reality of rural areas that places the women living in them in a particular situation that it has recognized in a range of instruments.
Following on from these reviews, we shall now go on to examine, firstly, whether the methodology implemented in the
Over its history, the ECtHR has cited CEDAW in fifty-eight judgments, only two of which pre-date
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Ünal Tekeli v. Turkey | 16/11/2004 | Alexandru Enache v. Romania | 03/10/2017 |
| Evans v. The United Kingdom | 10/04/2007 | Garib v. The Netherlands | 06/11/2017 |
| Opuz v. Turkey | 09/06/2009 | Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal | 19/12/2017 |
| Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia | 07/01/2010 | Dimitras v. Greece | 19/04/2018 |
| A v. Croatia | 14/10/2010 | Hülya Ebru Demírel v. Turkey | 19/06/2018 |
| A, B and C v. Ireland | 16/12/2010 | S.M. v. Croatia | 19/07/2018 |
| R.R. v. Poland | 26/05/2011 | Negrea and Others v. Romania | 24/07/2018 |
| V.C. v. Slovakia | 08/11/2011 | M.A. and Others v. Lithuania | 11/12/2018 |
| Konstantin Markin v. Russia | 22/03/2012 | Molla Sali v. Greece | 19/12/2018 |
| Valiuliené v. Lithuania | 26/03/2013 | Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal | 31/01/2019 |
| Eremia v. The Republic of Moldova | 28/05/2013 | Volodina v. Russia | 09/07/2019 |
| Mudic v. The Republic of Moldova | 16/07/2013 | Pryanishnikov v. Russia | 10/09/2019 |
| Rumor v. Italy | 27/05/2014 | J.D. and A. v. The United Kingdom | 24/10/2019 |
| S.A.S. v. France | 01/07/2014 | Tërshana v. Albania | 04/08/2020 |
| Konovalova v. Russia | 09/10/2014 | Levchuk v. Ukraine | 03/09/2020 |
| Penchevi v. Bulgaria | 10/02/2015 | Napotnik v. Romania | 20/10/2020 |
| Chiragou and Others v. Armenia | 16/06/2015 | Georgia v. Russia (II) | 21/01/2021 |
| Vrountou v. Cyprus | 13/10/2015 | Jurčić v. Croatia | 04/02/2021 |
| M.G. v. Turkey | 22/03/2016 | J.L. v. Italy | 27/05/2021 |
| Sharma v. Latvia | 24/03/2016 | Kurt v. Austria | 15/06/2021 |
| Biao v. Denmark | 24/05/2016 | Tkhelidze v. Georgia | 08/07/2021 |
| Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland | 21/06/2016 | Tapayeva and Others v. Russia | 23/11/2021 |
| Ramadan v. Malta | 21/06/2016 | Tunikova and Others v. Russia | 14/12/2021 |
| Halime Kiliç v. Turkey | 28/06/2016 | Y and Others v. Bulgaria | 22/03/2022 |
| Dubská and Krejzová v. The Czech Republic | 15/11/2016 | Landi v. Italy | 07/04/2022 |
| Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia | 24/01/2017 | Patrício Monteiro Telo de Abreu v. Portugal | 07/06/2022 |
| Talpis v. Italy | 02/03/2017 | M.S. v. Italy | 07/07/2022 |
| Bălşan v. Romania | 23/05/2017 | Beeler v. Switzerland | 11/10/2022 |
| Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal | 25/07/2017 | G.M. and Others v. The Republic of Moldova | 22/11/2022 |
The analysis of this reception carried out by the ECtHR of the CEDAW positions has not been expressly made by the doctrine. Carrying out this task in this work would exceed its scope and purpose. For this reason, we will focus next just in the four cases in which the ECtHR has taken into account the positions of other international organizations —not only CEDAW— that refer to gender inequalities and the particularities of rural areas.
We can also look at the later case of
Another case to which we could refer is
Finally, we can cite the recent case of
From what we have observed, we can draw two main conclusions. Firstly, where women’s rights are concerned, the interpretative methodology created by the ECtHR in
Secondly, international guidelines referring expressly to women living in rural areas have also been taken into account. In particular, the ECtHR has considered the CEDAW Committee’s concluding observations to States in which the peculiarity of rural areas is mentioned. These references focus particularly on issues related to gender-based violence: the lower rates of reporting of gender-based violence to the police; the lack of counselling, protection and shelters; stereotypes; and public scrutiny.
In the same way we observed in references to rurality in ECtHR case law above, the rurality of an area is not assumed to be a source of discrimination in itself, but the ECtHR does accept that some of the characteristics of rurality place women in a different position compared with women in urban areas.
As stated in the introduction to this paper, there were two fundamental objectives. On the one hand, to find out if the particular situation of women living in rural areas has been taken into account by the ECtHR as a specific position of inequality, thus adopting an intersectional view of discrimination. On the other hand, to know if the ECtHR has adopted recommendations from international organizations, especially CEDAW, in relation to gender inequality in rural areas. After the analysis carried out, the first objective must be answered in the negative, while the second can be answered in the affirmative.
For this paper, we undertook an examination of ECtHR case law in connection with the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14 ECHR, specifically gender-based discrimination. We reviewed the ECtHR’s case law on gender-based discrimination and how this case law has developed over time. We noted, too, that the ECtHR seems to be tentatively considering intersectionality in its reflections on discrimination and on our particular area of interest, the ways in which gender and rurality intersect in the specific situation of women in rural areas.
We also evaluated whether ECtHR case law considers rurality a specific source of discrimination. From what we observed, it can be concluded that, although the ECtHR does not recognize rurality as a specific source of discrimination, it has taken present sometimes the reality of rural areas as a peculiar reality. Therefore, it has not understood that being a woman in a rural area is a specific type of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. This statement makes sense if we have observed that the ECtHR has not yet adopted a clear position that takes intersectionality into account.
The other hypotheses supported by our research is that ever since the ECtHR first used the interpretative methodology established in
Publication co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the Regional Government of Extremadura through the research project “Igualdad de género en el entorno rural y municipal de Extremadura: diagnóstico y propuestas” (Gender equality in rural and urban Extremadura: Assessment and proposals) (IB18128).
Para la realización de este estudio, Silvia Soriano Moreno ha trabajado la jurisprudencia del TEDH y Sara Marchena Galán ha trabajado las orientaciones de la CEDAW.
In Spain, the issue has also been addressed in recent years through the
Art. 174 TFEU: In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Union shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion. In particular, the Union shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions. Among the regions concerned, particular attention shall be paid to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps such as the northernmost regions with very low population density and island, cross-border and mountain regions.
Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021, on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund. Recital 45 states: The ERDF should address the problems of disadvantaged areas, in particular rural areas and areas which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, including demographic decline, in accessing basic services, including digital services, enhancing attractiveness for investment, including through business investments and connectivity to large markets. More information at:
More information at:
In relation to this concept, see Berardo (
Eurostat, Glossary: “Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS)” defines them as follows: The Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics, abbreviated NUTS (from the French version Nomenclature des Unités territoriales statistiques) is a geographical nomenclature subdividing the economic territory of the European Union (EU) into regions at three different levels (NUTS 1, 2 and 3 respectively, moving from larger to smaller territorial units). Above NUTS 1, there is the “national” level of the Member States. The NUTS is based on Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS), which is regularly updated. Available at:
For example, in
Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund.
The European Parliament has addressed the issue on several different occasions, referring to women in texts on agriculture and development or referring to rural issues in texts about women’s rights. We can highlight in European Parliament (
Research project “Igualdad de género en el entorno rural y municipal de Extremadura: diagnóstico y propuestas” (Gender equality in rural and urban Extremadura: Assessment and proposals) (IB18128). An initial approach to the issue can be found in Soriano Moreno (
Detailed analysis of the case law may be found in Martin (
The case of
The cases of
The cases of
The case of
The cases of
The cases of
The case of
For example, the cases of
For example, the case of
In the first judgment, the opinions of Judges Tulkens, Zagrebelsky and Sajó were that discrimination had occurred.
On gender equality, we could cite as examples
The case of
A brief review of the construction of the concept can be found in La Barbera (
By way of example, the following may be cited: caso del
Specific references can be found in relation to situations of gender-based violence in Australia, for example in Adler (
The cases of
The cases of
The case of
The case of
The case of
The case of
The case of
The cases of
Grand Chamber,
On the criticisms of and support for this view, see
An examination of this subsequent case law can be found in Lörcher (
The case of
Information on the ratification of international human rights treaties including CEDAW can be found in the interactive map available at:
Art. 21.1: The Committee shall, through the Economic and Social Council, report annually to the General Assembly of the United Nations on its activities and may make suggestions and general recommendations based on the examination of reports and information received from the States Parties. Such suggestions and general recommendations shall be included in the report of the Committee together with comments, if any, from States Parties.
General Recommendation No. 25, on article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, on temporary special measures. Available at:
The body of recommendations can be found at the following link:
Art. 18: 1. States Parties undertake to submit to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for consideration by the Committee, a report on the legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures which they have adopted to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and on the progress made in this respect: (a) Within one year after the entry into force for the State concerned; (b) Thereafter at least every four years and further whenever the Committee so requests.
2. Reports may indicate factors and difficulties affecting the degree of fulfilment of obligations under the present Convention.
Concluding observations. K.4: After its consideration of the report, the Committee will adopt and publish its concluding observations on the report and the constructive dialogue with the delegation. The concluding observations will be included in the annual report of the Committee to the General Assembly. The Committee expects the State party to disseminate the concluding observations widely, in all appropriate languages. Available at:
Available at:
United Nations, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action: 40: […] New procedures should also be adopted to strengthen implementation of the commitment to women’s equality and the human rights of women. The Commission on the Status of Women and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women should quickly examine the possibility of introducing the right of petition through the preparation of an optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women […].
Data available at:
The cases of
Publication co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the Regional Government of Extremadura through the research project “Igualdad de género en el entorno rural y municipal de Extremadura: diagnóstico y propuestas” (Gender equality in rural and urban Extremadura: Assessment and proposals) (IB18128).
Para la realización de este estudio, Silvia Soriano Moreno ha trabajado la jurisprudencia del TEDH y Sara Marchena Galán ha trabajado las orientaciones de la CEDAW.
In Spain, the issue has also been addressed in recent years through the
Art. 174 TFEU: In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Union shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion. In particular, the Union shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions. Among the regions concerned, particular attention shall be paid to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps such as the northernmost regions with very low population density and island, cross-border and mountain regions.
Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021, on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund. Recital 45 states: The ERDF should address the problems of disadvantaged areas, in particular rural areas and areas which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, including demographic decline, in accessing basic services, including digital services, enhancing attractiveness for investment, including through business investments and connectivity to large markets. More information at:
More information at:
In relation to this concept, see Berardo (
Eurostat, Glossary: “Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS)” defines them as follows: The Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics, abbreviated NUTS (from the French version Nomenclature des Unités territoriales statistiques) is a geographical nomenclature subdividing the economic territory of the European Union (EU) into regions at three different levels (NUTS 1, 2 and 3 respectively, moving from larger to smaller territorial units). Above NUTS 1, there is the “national” level of the Member States. The NUTS is based on Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS), which is regularly updated. Available at:
For example, in
Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund.
The European Parliament has addressed the issue on several different occasions, referring to women in texts on agriculture and development or referring to rural issues in texts about women’s rights. We can highlight in European Parliament (
Research project “Igualdad de género en el entorno rural y municipal de Extremadura: diagnóstico y propuestas” (Gender equality in rural and urban Extremadura: Assessment and proposals) (IB18128). An initial approach to the issue can be found in Soriano Moreno (
Detailed analysis of the case law may be found in Martin (
The case of
The cases of
The cases of
The case of
The cases of
The cases of
The case of
For example, the cases of
For example, the case of
In the first judgment, the opinions of Judges Tulkens, Zagrebelsky and Sajó were that discrimination had occurred.
On gender equality, we could cite as examples
The case of
A brief review of the construction of the concept can be found in La Barbera (
By way of example, the following may be cited: caso del
Specific references can be found in relation to situations of gender-based violence in Australia, for example in Adler (
The cases of
The cases of
The case of
The case of
The case of
The case of
The case of
The cases of
Grand Chamber,
On the criticisms of and support for this view, see
An examination of this subsequent case law can be found in Lörcher (
The case of
Information on the ratification of international human rights treaties including CEDAW can be found in the interactive map available at:
Art. 21.1: The Committee shall, through the Economic and Social Council, report annually to the General Assembly of the United Nations on its activities and may make suggestions and general recommendations based on the examination of reports and information received from the States Parties. Such suggestions and general recommendations shall be included in the report of the Committee together with comments, if any, from States Parties.
General Recommendation No. 25, on article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, on temporary special measures. Available at:
The body of recommendations can be found at the following link:
Art. 18: 1. States Parties undertake to submit to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for consideration by the Committee, a report on the legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures which they have adopted to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and on the progress made in this respect: (a) Within one year after the entry into force for the State concerned; (b) Thereafter at least every four years and further whenever the Committee so requests.
2. Reports may indicate factors and difficulties affecting the degree of fulfilment of obligations under the present Convention.
Concluding observations. K.4: After its consideration of the report, the Committee will adopt and publish its concluding observations on the report and the constructive dialogue with the delegation. The concluding observations will be included in the annual report of the Committee to the General Assembly. The Committee expects the State party to disseminate the concluding observations widely, in all appropriate languages. Available at:
Available at:
United Nations, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action: 40: […] New procedures should also be adopted to strengthen implementation of the commitment to women’s equality and the human rights of women. The Commission on the Status of Women and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women should quickly examine the possibility of introducing the right of petition through the preparation of an optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women […].
Data available at:
The cases of