A homosexual woman complained that she had not been allowed to adopt a child. Her application was rejected by the French administrative court on grounds based substantially upon her sexual orientation.
Held: The provision was an unlawful discrimination. The denial of adoption to a woman in a same sex relationship could not be justified: ‘The Court reiterates that, for the purposes of Article 14, a difference in treatment is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification, which means that it does not pursue a ‘legitimate aim’ or that there is no ‘reasonable proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised’. Where sexual orientation is in issue, there is a need for particularly convincing and weighty reasons to justify a difference in treatment regarding rights falling within Article 8.’
43546/02,  ECHR 211
European Convention on Human Rights 9
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – Rodriguez v Minister of Housing of The Government and Another PC 14-Dec-2009
Gibraltar – The claimant challenged a public housing allocation policy which gave preference to married couples and parents of children, excluding same sex and infertile couples.
Held: The aim of discouraging homosexual relationships is . .
Cited – Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v Charity Commission for England and Wales and Another ChD 17-Mar-2010
The charity appealed against refusal of permission to amend its charitable objects as set out in the memorandum of association. The charity was successful as an adoption agency particularly in placing children who would otherwise have had difficulty . .
See Also – EB v France ECHR 22-Jan-2008
The claimant, a homosexual woman, complained that her homosexuality had meant her disqualification from adopting a child.
Held: There is no right to foster, but the provision was an unlawful discrimination. The denial of adoption to a woman in . .
See Also – EB v France ECHR 30-Sep-2009
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.250431