Archives mensuelles : octobre 2014

Royaume-Uni – Jurisprudence

– L and B (Children: Specific Issues: temporary leave to remove from the jurisdiction; circumcision) [2016] EWHC 849 (Fam) (Pour un commentaire: Frank Cranmer, « Religious circumcision and parental consent: L & B » in Law & Religion UK, 21 April 2016).

– B and G (Children) (No.2) [2015] EWFC 3.

Re J (A Minor) (Prohibited Steps Order: Circumcision) [1999] 2 FLR 678 (Fam), [1999] 2 FCR 34 (mère chrétienne non pratiquante et père musulman non pratiquant); Affaire confirmée dans Re J (Specific Issue Order: Child’s Religious Upbringing and Circumcision) [1999] EWCA Civ 3022, [2000] 1 FLR 571 (CA).

– Re S (Change of Names: Cultural Factors) [2001] 3 FCR 648 (Fam) (mère musulmane et père sikh, circoncision autorisée).

– Re S (Specific Issue Order: Religion: Circumcision) [2004] EWHC 1282 (Fam); [2005] 1 FLR 236 (mère musulmane et père hindou jaïn). L’affaire a été portée en appel par la mère (dans S (Children) [2004] EWCA Civ 1257) mais l’appel a été rejeté.

KS v TS [2012] ScotSC 100 (père musulman et mère chrétienne).

Autres affaires en droit de la famille et éducation religieuse:

C (A Child), Re [2012] EW Misc 15 (CC) (11 May 2012).

M.L. v. I.M.[2011] ScotSC 185 (30 November 2011).

M v H [2008] EWHC 324 (Fam) (21 February 2008).

N (A Child: Religion: Jehovah’s Witness), Re [2011] EWHC B26 (Fam) (24 August 2011).

– A Father v Lancashire County Council [2010] EWHC 2503 (Fam) (30 July 2010).

– G (Children), Re [2012] EWCA Civ 1233.

E v The Governing Body of JFS & Anor [2008] EWHC 1535 (Admin) (03 July 2008).

Siddiqui & Anor v James and Charles Dodd (A Firm) [2006] EWHC 1295 (QB) (24 May 2006).

– SS (Malaysia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 888 (18 July 2013). 

KC & Anor v City of Westminster Social & Community Services Dept. & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 198 (19 March 2008).

– S (A Child), Re [2005] EWHC 1490 (Fam) (11 July 2005).

Williamson & Ors v Secretary of State for Education and Employment [2002] EWCA Civ 1926 (12 December 2002).

R v Brown [1992] UKHL 7 (11 March 1993).

Cas de faute professionnelle médicale: 

– Ahmed v. General Medical Council (GMC) [2001] UKPC 49 (19 November 2001).

– Nicholas-Pillai v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 1048 (Admin) (06 May 2009).

– Malik, R (on the application of) v Waltham Forest PCT & Anor [2006] EWHC 487 (Admin) (17 March 2006).

En droit pénal:

R v. Barnes [2004] EWCA Crim 3246.

Voir en particulier les commentaires de Lord Woolf CJ  sur le consentement aux opérations/ chirurgie au paragraphe 8.

– R v. Brown [1994] 1 AC 212.

Voir en particulier les commentaires sur la légalité de la circoncision rituelle de Lord Templeman.

– Burrell v. Harmer [1967] Crim LR 169.

R v. Emmet [1999] EWCA Crim 1710.

Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986] AC 112.

–  Re: J [2000] 1 FCR 307.

– Re: S (Specific Issue Order: Religion: Circumcision) [2004] EWHC 1282 (Fam).

– St. George’s Healthcare v. S [1998] 3 All ER 673.

– R v. Wilson [1997] QB 47.

Marie FOX, Matt GIBSON et Sylvie LANGLAUDE.

Royaume-Uni – Textes

 

A) Offences against the Person Act 1861 (Loi de 1861 sur les infractions contre les personnes)

Voir en particulier les dispositions relatives aux lésions corporelles (actual bodily harm : s. 47 ; grievous bodily harm : s. 20 ; grievous bodily harm with intent : s. 18).

B) Children Act 1989 (Loi sur les enfants de 1989)

Section 1 Welfare of the child

(1) When a court determines any question with respect to — (a) the upbringing of a child; or (b) the administration of a child’s property or the application of any income arising from it, the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.

(2) In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.

(3) In the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4), a court shall have regard in particular to — (a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding)

(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs;

(c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;

(d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;

(e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

(f) how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;

(g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.

(4) The circumstances are that—

(a) the court is considering whether to make, vary or discharge a section 8 order, and the making, variation or discharge of the order is opposed by any party to the proceedings; or

(b) the court is considering whether to make, vary or discharge [F1a special guardianship order or] an order under Part IV.

(5) Where a court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders under this Act with respect to a child, it shall not make the order or any of the orders unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.

Section 2 Parental responsibility for children

(1) Where a child’s father and mother were married to each other at the time of his birth, they shall each have parental responsibility for the child.

(1A) Where a child — (a) has a parent by virtue of section 42 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008; or (b) has a parent by virtue of section 43 of that Act and is a person to whom section 1(3) of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 applies, the child’s mother and the other parent shall each have parental responsibility for the child.

(2) Where a child’s father and mother were not married to each other at the time of his birth—(a) the mother shall have parental responsibility for the child; (b) the father shall have parental responsibility for the child if he has acquired it (and has not ceased to have it) in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2A) Where a child has a parent by virtue of section 43 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and is not a person to whom section 1(3) of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 applies—(a) the mother shall have parental responsibility for the child; (b) the other parent shall have parental responsibility for the child if she has acquired it (and has not ceased to have it) in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(3) References in this Act to a child whose father and mother were, or (as the case may be) were not, married to each other at the time of his birth must be read with section 1 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 (which extends their meaning).

(4) The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.

(5) More than one person may have parental responsibility for the same child at the same time.

(6) A person who has parental responsibility for a child at any time shall not cease to have that responsibility solely because some other person subsequently acquires parental responsibility for the child.

(7) Where more than one person has parental responsibility for a child, each of them may act alone and without the other (or others) in meeting that responsibility; but nothing in this Part shall be taken to affect the operation of any enactment which requires the consent of more than one person in a matter affecting the child.

(8) The fact that a person has parental responsibility for a child shall not entitle him to act in any way which would be incompatible with any order made with respect to the child under this Act.

(9) A person who has parental responsibility for a child may not surrender or transfer any part of that responsibility to another but may arrange for some or all of it to be met by one or more persons acting on his behalf.

(10) The person with whom any such arrangement is made may himself be a person who already has parental responsibility for the child concerned.

(11) The making of any such arrangement shall not affect any liability of the person making it which may arise from any failure to meet any part of his parental responsibility for the child concerned.

Section 3 Meaning of « Parental responsibility »

(1) In this Act “parental responsibility” means all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property.

(2) It also includes the rights, powers and duties which a guardian of the child’s estate (appointed, before the commencement of section 5, to act generally) would have had in relation to the child and his property.

(3) The rights referred to in subsection (2) include, in particular, the right of the guardian to receive or recover in his own name, for the benefit of the child, property of whatever description and wherever situated which the child is entitled to receive or recover.

(4) The fact that a person has, or does not have, parental responsibility for a child shall not affect — (a) any obligation which he may have in relation to the child (such as a statutory duty to maintain the child); or (b) any rights which, in the event of the child’s death, he (or any other person) may have in relation to the child’s property.

(5) A person who — (a) does not have parental responsibility for a particular child; but (b) has care of the child, may (subject to the provisions of this Act) do what is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child’s welfare.

 

Marie FOX, Matt GIBSON et Sylvie LANGLAUDE.

 

 

Belgique – Jurisprudence

 

Jurisprudence relative à la circoncision:

– Cour d’appel de Liège (Ch. Jeun.), 9 avril 1981, JBE 19810409, p. 327-335.

– Cour d’appel de Bruxelles, troisième chambre, R.G. N° 2008/KR/108, 15 décembre 2008, JBE 20081215.

– Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Ch. Jeun.), 24 mai 2011, JBE 20110524, Revue trimestrielle de droit familial, 2/2012, p. 405-412.

 

Louis-Léon CHRISTIANS.

Belgique – Textes

 

Art. 409 du Code pénal

« § 1er. Quiconque aura pratiqué, facilité ou favorisé toute forme de mutilation des organes génitaux d’une personne de sexe féminin, avec ou sans consentement de cette dernière, sera puni d’un emprisonnement de trois ans à cinq ans.
La tentative sera punie d’un emprisonnement de huit jours à un an. Sera puni de la même peine quiconque aura incité à la pratique de toute forme de mutilation des organes génitaux d’une personne de sexe féminin ou aura, directement ou indirectement, par écrit ou verbalement fait, fait faire, publié, distribué ou diffusé de la publicité en faveur d’une telle pratique.
§ 2. Si la mutilation est pratiquée sur une personne mineure ou dans un but de lucre, la peine sera la réclusion de cinq ans à sept ans.
§ 3. Lorsque la mutilation a causé une maladie paraissant incurable ou une incapacité permanente de travail personnel, la peine sera la réclusion de cinq ans à dix ans.
§ 4. Lorsque la mutilation faite sans intention de donner la mort l’aura pourtant causée, la peine sera la réclusion de dix ans à quinze ans.
§ 5. Si la mutilation visée au § 1er a été pratiquée sur un mineur ou une personne qui, en raison de son état physique ou mental, n’était pas à même de pourvoir à son entretien, par ses père, mère ou autres ascendants, toute autre personne ayant autorité sur le mineur ou l’incapable ou en ayant la garde, ou toute personne qui cohabite occasionnellement ou habituellement avec la victime, le minimum des peines portées aux §§ 1er à 4 sera doublé s’il s’agit d’un emprisonnement, et augmenté de deux ans s’il s’agit de réclusion.».

Louis-Léon CHRISTIANS.

Rapports et Avis (sélection)

– Allemagne: R. MERKEL (expertise pour le Bundestag concernant le § 1631d BGB), Stellungnahme zu dem Regierungentwurf eines Gesetzes über den Umfang der Personensorge bei einer Beschneidung des männlichen Kindes, 2012, 17/11295.

– Allemagne: R. MERKEL, Die Haut eines Anderen, SZ du 30-08-2012.

– Canada: Société canadienne de pédiatrie, La circoncision néonatale revisitée, 1996.

– Canada: Société canadienne du SIDA,  La circoncision au Canada.

– Canada: College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, Infant Male Circumcision, Policy Manual, Resource Manual for Physicians, Vancouver, BC: College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2004.

– Canada: Kendel D. A., Caution Against Routine Circumcision of Newborn Male Infants (Memorandum to physicians and surgeons of Saskatchewan), Saskatoon: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, February 20, 2002.

– France : Conseil National du Sida, Rapport sur la circoncision : une modalité discutable de réduction des risques de transmission du VIH, 24 mai 2007.

– Italie: Comitato nazionale per la bioetica, Problemi bioetici in una società multietnica: La circoncisione: profili bioetici, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri, Dipartimento per l’informazione e l’editoria, Roma 1998.

– Italie: Parere, Commissione dei Medici dell’OMCEO della Provincia di Torino, Parere deontologico della Commissione medici dell’OMCEO della Provincia di Torino sulla pratica medica della circoncisione di neonati e bambini di carattere rituale, 6 gennaio 2006.

– Italie: Ufficio Stampa FNOMCeO – Federazione Nazionale degli Ordini dei Medici Chirurghi e degli Odontoiatri (a cura di), Benato: circoncisione, tra bioetica e dovere religioso.

– ONU: Rapport d’activité du Rapporteur spécial sur la liberté de religion ou de conviction, Heiner Bielefeldt, Élimination de toutes les formes d’intolérance fondées sur la religion, 5 août 2015,  points 71 à 73 et 78.

 

– Pays-Bas: Royal Dutch Medical Association (Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst-KNMG), Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, 2010.

– Royaume-Uni: Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 122 (1992), Legislating the Criminal Code: Offences  Against the Person and General Principles.

– Royaume-Uni: Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 134 (1994), Consent and Offences Against the  Person.

– Royaume-Uni: Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 139 (1995), Consent in the Criminal Law.

– Royaume-Uni: Home Office, Violence: Reforming the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Home Office, London, 1998.

– Royaume-Uni: G. Smith, Children’s Perspectives on Believing and Belonging, National Children’s Bureau for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2005, 84 p.

– Royaume-Uni: British Medical Association, Medical Ethics Committee, The law and ethics of male circumcision – guidance for doctors, London: British Medical Association, 2003 (revised 15 June 2006).

– Royaume-Uni: General Medical Council, Personal beliefs and medical practice, General Medical Council, London, 2013.

– Royaume-Uni: Law Commission, Offences against the person, scoping Paper, forthcoming 2014.

– Suède: Rapport sur la circoncision de la Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (Bet. 2009/10:SoU 11 p. 50 ff.).

– Tasmanie/Australie: Tasmania Law Reform Institute, Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcision, final report n° 17, 2012, 101 p.

– Tasmanie/Australie: Tasmania Law Reform Institute, Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcision, issues paper n° 14, 2009, 65 p.

Union Européenne: Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in EU Member States: experiences and perceptions of anti-Semitism, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2013, 76 p.

 

Pièces relatives à la circoncision – Musée Alsacien de Strasbourg

Banc decirconcision 1Banc de circoncision (2)Livre des circoncisionsNécessaire de circoncision

Banc de circoncision

« Sur le dossier, les inscriptions à gauche au-dessus du siège du parrain : ‘Ceci est mon alliance’ ; à droite, au-dessus du siège réservé au prophète Elie : ‘Voici le, siège d’Elie’. Bischwiller, milieu 19ème siècle ».

Banc de circoncision (2)

« Bois peint, fin 18ème ».

Livre des circoncisions

« Le mohel (circonciseur) (…) a noté dans ce livre tous les garçons qu’il a circoncis dans la région alentour entre 1792 et 1829. Encre sur papier, reliure cuir ».

Nécessaire de circoncision

« Petit couteau en fer avec son écrin, flacon de poudre hémostatique bouchon en étain, motif et initiales gravés. Alsace, 19ème siècle ».

Italie – Jurisprudence

 

– Tribunale di Milano, Sezione IV Penale, sentenza 26 novembre 1999.

(tr. fr.:) « La circoncision et l’infibulation: l’existence du délit de blessures volontaires ».

Tribunale di Pavia, Sezione penale, sentenza 26 settembre 2003, n. 539.

(tr. fr.:) « La circoncision rituelle et le crime d’avoir fraudé l’organisme public ».

– Cassazione penale, Sezione V, sentenza 8 maggio 2007, n. 17441.

(tr. fr.:) « La circoncision rituelle et le crime d’avoir fraudé l’organisme public ».

– Tribunale di Padova, Sezione penale, sentenza 9 novembre 2007.

(tr. fr.:) « Intervention de la circoncision rituelle et le crime d’exercice abusif de la profession ».

Commentaire:

Plantamura Vito, « Brevi note in tema di circoncisione maschile rituale, esercizio abusivo della professione e lesioni », Giurisprudenza di merito, 10, 2008, p. 2590-2606.

– Tribunale Padova, Sezione penale, sentenza 5 dicembre 2007, Il merito 2008, 6, 57 (s.m.).

(tr. fr.:) « Exploitation financière de la profession ».

Commentaire:

Russo Paolo, « Profili bioetici e giuridici della circoncisione rituale maschile (nota a Trib. pen. Padova 5 dicembre 2007 n. 2046) », Il merito, 6, 2008, p. 59-63.

– Cassazione penale, Sezione VI, sentenza 22 giugno 2011, dep. 24 novembre 2011, n. 43646.

(tr. fr.:) « La circoncision dans les mains d’un non-admis à la profession médicale: la non-existence de complicité dans le crime de l’art. 348 c.p. par le parent ».

Commentaires:

Galasso Davide, « Circoncisione, reato culturalmente orientato ed ignoranza scusabile della legge penale », Diritto e Giustizia, Quotidiano online del 26 Novembre 2011, in www.iusexplorer.it.

D’Ippolito Ernesto, « Kulturnormen ed inevitabilità dell’errore sul divieto: la corte di cassazione riconosce l’errore determinato da ‘fattori culturali’ come causa di esclusione della colpevolezza », Cassazione penale, 11, 2012, p. 3711-3720.

Pusateri Verena, « La circoncisione maschile cd. rituale non integra – se eseguita per motivi culturali che determinano l’ignoranza inevitabile della legge penale – il reato di esercizio abusivo della professione medica », Diritto Penale Contemporaneo, 22 marzo 2012.

Tribunale di Como, Sezione penale, sentenza 14 gennaio 2013, n. 1339.

(tr. fr.:) « intervention de la circoncision masculine, la nécessité d’obtenir le consentement des auteurs, la dissidence de l’un des parents, l’infraction de blessures ».

Commentaires:

Miazzi Lorenzo, Circoncisione maschile, reato di lesioni personali, consenso dell’avente diritto.

Della Ragione Luca, « La circoncisione rituale maschile compiuta con il dissenso di uno dei genitori integra il delitto di lesioni personali dolose (Nota a Trib. Como sez. I pen. 14 gennaio 2013, n. 1339) », Diritto e religioni, 1, 2013, p. 534-538.

 

Antonio ANGELUCCI, Alessandro FERRARI et Silvio FERRARI.

Italie – Textes et documents officiels

 

– Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica, La circoncisione: profili bioetici, 25 settembre 1998.

– Decreto, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Definizione dei livelli essenziali di assistenza. Esclusione della circoncisione rituale maschile, 29 novembre 2001.

– Deliberazione della Giunta regionale, Aggiornamento del nomenclatore tariffario regionale delle prestazioni di assistenza specialistica ambulatoriale – D.G.R. n. 73-13176 del 26.07.2004 e s.m.i. – ed ulteriori indicazioni. Circoncisione rituale, 2 novembre 2009, n. 49-12479.

– Deliberazione della Giunta regionale, Approvazione della sperimentazione relativa alla circoncisione rituale in day surgery presso l’A.S.O.OIRM/S. Anna di Torino, 20 marzo 2006, n. 39-2418.

– Parere, Commissione dei Medici dell’OMCEO della Provincia di Torino, Parere deontologico della Commissione medici dell’OMCEO della Provincia di Torino sulla pratica medica della circoncisione di neonati e bambini di carattere rituale, 6 gennaio 2006.

– Delibera, Regione Toscana, Definizione dei livelli essenziali di assistenza (LEA) – Determinazioni applicative, 3 giugno 2002, n. 561.

Antonio ANGELUCCI, Alessandro FERRARI et Silvio FERRARI.

Suède – Textes

Textes:

– Projet de loi du gouvernement suédois de 2001 (Prop. 2000/01:81) concernant une loi sur la circoncision : selon ce texte, la circoncision doit être pratiquée avec « l’anesthésie requise », par un médecin agréé ou une personne ayant une autorisation spéciale ; une personne autre qu’un médecin agréé ne peut pratiquer la circoncision sur un enfant âgé de plus de deux mois ; une autorisation spéciale peut être délivrée à une personne proposée par une communauté religieuse quand la circoncision fait partie d’une tradition religieuse et que la personne est jugée capable de pratiquer l’opération chirurgicale conformément aux dispositions en vigueur.

“Among the provisions in the proposed act was that the circumcision should be performed with “the anesthesia needed”, that it may be performed only by a licensed doctor or a person with a special permission, that another person than a licensed doctor may not perform circumcision on a boy older than two months, and that a special permission may be granted to a person who has been proposed by a religious community, where circumcision is a part of a religious tradition and the person is judged to be able to perform the surgery according to the provisions applicable”.

– Loi sur la circoncision entrée en vigueur le 1er octobre 2001 : elle prévoit que l’opération chirurgicale de circoncision doit toujours être effectuée sous anesthésie (pratiquée par un médecin ou une infirmière agréé(e)).

“that the surgery should always be performed with anesthesia and that the anesthesia should be performed by a licensed doctor or nurse”.

– Rapport sur la circoncision de la Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (Bet. 2009/10:SoU 11 p. 50 ff.) : L’Association a recommandé à ses membres (les régions) de pratiquer la circoncision dans le cadre des soins de santé publique; sur 21, deux ont décidé  de ne pas effectuer la circoncision sans raisons médicales, deux n’ont pas encore décidé, une s’est référée aux cliniques privées, et une a décidé d’effectuer la circoncision seulement pour des enfants âgés de plus de deux ans. Le rapport a mentionné que la Société suédoise de médecine (Swedish Society of Medicine) était contre la circoncision (sans raisons médicales) sur les garçons qui ne peuvent pas donner leur consentement.

“the Parliament’s social committee in 2010 presented a report from the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions on the matter of circumcision. The report made clear that the Association had recommended its members, the regions, to perform circumcision within the public health care and that – out of 21 – two had decided not to perform circumcision without medical reasons, two had not decided yet, one referred to private clinics, and one had decided to perform circumcision only for boys older than two years. It was also mentioned in the report that the Swedish Society of Medicine was against circumcision (without medical reasons) on boys who  could not give their own consent”.

Lars FRIEDNER.

 

Suède – Jurisprudence

Décision de la Cour Suprême de Suède de 1997 (NJA 1997, p. 636) : à propos de circoncisions, avec le consentement des garants des enfants,  pratiquées sur des enfants  sans anesthésie, par un homme d’origine palestinienne ayant exercé en tant que chirurgien en Palestine mais n’ayant pas la licence suédoise de médecine, alors accusé d’agression/voie de fait (« assault »). Selon la Cour, « si le principe devrait être établi que seule la circoncision sous anesthésie est autorisée, cela conduirait dans la pratique à ce que l’opération puisse  seulement être effectuée par le personnel du service de santé et des soins médicaux. Cela semble impliquer une violation des traditions actuelles des juifs ainsi que des musulmans ». La Cour a retenu que le consentement des garants était valide et l’inculpé a été libéré.

“If the principle should be set up, that only circumcision under anesthesia is allowed, it would in practice lead to the effect that the surgery only could be performed by personnel  within the health and medical care service. This seems to imply a violation of the hitherto traditions of Jews as well as Muslims”.

 

Lars FRIEDNER.