The claimant complained that the state did not give proper recognition of his relationship with his deceased same sex partner.
Held: The court noted the growing tendency in a number of European states towards the legal and judicial recognition of stable de facto partnerships between homosexuals. The court considered that, despite this, there was still little common ground between the contracting states. ‘As regards respect for family life the court said: ‘As regards establishing whether the decision in question concerns the sphere of ‘family life’ within the meaning of Article 8 ss 1 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that, according to the established case-law of the Convention institutions, long-term homosexual relationships between two men do not fall within the scope of the right to respect for family life protected by Article 8 of the Convention. The Court considers that, despite the growing tendency in a number of European states towards a legal and judicial recognition of stable de facto partnerships between homosexuals, this is, given the existence of little common ground between the Contracting States, an area where the contracting states ‘still enjoy a wide margin of appreciation’. Accordingly, the applicant’s relationship with his late partner ‘does not fall within Article 8 in so far as that provision protects the right to respect for family life’. despite the growing tendency in a number of European States towards the legal and judicial recognition of stable de facto partnerships between homosexuals, this is, given the existence of little common ground between the Contracting States, an area in which they still enjoy a wide margin of appreciation . . . Accordingly, the applicant’s relationship with his late partner does not fall within article 8 insofar as that provision protects the right to respect for human life.’ and ‘a legitimate aim, which is the protection of the family based on marriage bonds (see, mutatis mutandis, the Marcks v Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A No. 31. 40). The court considers that the difference in treatment found can be considered to fall within the state’s margin of appreciation . . .’
Citations:
56501/00, [2001] ECHR 896
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M CA 15-Oct-2004
M had challenged the Child Support Regulations saying that they discriminated against her. She was the liable parent, and in a monogomoud lesbian relationship. As such she said that she was treated worse than she would have been since the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Discrimination
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.239723
