HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

due to the employee’s support of same-sex couples’ rights, addressing the impact of freedom of expression and equality principles in workplace settings. Similarly, in the M. B. and V. M. V. case 56 , the Court recognized the rights of same-sex parents and their children in matters related to identity documents, ensuring the protection of family rights across Member States regardless of national legislation on same sex relationships. Additionally, in the Accept case 57 , the Court tackled homophobic statements made by a company’s representative and clarified that such statements could amount to discrimination, even in the absence of a specific victim. The N.H. 58 case examined the procedural aspect of standing, confirming the significance of litigation and the role of organizations in representing LGBTQ+ individuals in discrimination cases, thereby broadening the scope of access to justice for such communities. Procedural remedies available for private litigants have notably improved in recent decades, exemplified by increased opportunities for individuals to appeal to EU law before the CJEU. 59 To give examples, the Treaty of Lisbon expanded the scope of judicial review for individuals. Previously, the conditions for individual standing were more restrictive, but the introduction of Article 263(4) TFEU allowed individuals to challenge EU acts that are of direct and individual concern, including certain regulatory acts that do not require further implementing measures. Despite major alterations in the EU Treaties, it is important to note that some argue the ECtHR holds a stronger position when addressing claims from LGBTQ+ individuals, as cases before the CJEU are frequently subject to preliminary rulings – a procedure that individuals cannot directly initiate. However, it is crucial to emphasize that the most common route for bringing LGBTQ+ rights cases to the CJEU remains through these preliminary rulings. While it is true that this procedure is initiated by national courts, individuals often play a key role in influencing the court’s decision to refer the case to the CJEU. Many significant judgments concerning LGBTQ+ rights have emerged through this process, making it a vital mechanism for enforcing EU law. However, unlike the 56 Court of Justice of the European Union. C-671/20, M. B.; V. M. V. v. Minister van Justitie en Veiligheid [online]. Judgment of 30 June 2022 [cit. 2024-08-14]. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62020CJ0671. 57 Court of Justice of the European Union. C-101/19, Accept v. Minister for Education [online]. Judgment of 23 September 2020 [cit. 2024-08-14]. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/?uri=CELEX:62019CJ0101. 58 Court of Justice of the European Union. C-90/20, N. H. v. State Secretary for Security and Justice [online]. Judgment of 29 July 2021 [cit. 2024-08-14]. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/?uri=CELEX:62020CJ0090. 59 GUERRERO, Marion. Lawyering for LGBT Rights in Europe: The Emancipatory Potential of Strategic Litigation at the CJEU and the ECtHR. In: European University Institute [online]. 2018, p. 138. [cit. 2024-02-19]. Available at: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/60246/Guerrero_2018_LAW. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

135