The claimants complained of the ban in Italy on the recognition of same sex relationships. Despite several rulings of the Italian Constitutional Court that they had a constitutional right to have their relationships recognised by the law, the Italian state had failed over some thirty years to provide a legal means for them to obtain this recognition.
Held: Italy had failed to fulfil its obligation to ensure that the applicants had available a specific legal framework providing for the recognition and protection of their union. To find otherwise, the Court would have had to be unwilling to take note of the changing conditions in Italy and reluctant to apply the Convention in a way which was practical and effective.
For the purposes of a complaint under Article 14 taken with Article 8, the applicants did not need to show that the action of the state violated their rights under Article 8, but only that their complaint fell within the ‘ambit’ or scope of Article 8: ‘As the Court has consistently held, Article 14 complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. It has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to ‘the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms’ safeguarded by those provisions. Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions – and to this extent it is autonomous – there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter’
18766/11 36030/11 – Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 716
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8 14
Human Rights
Citing:
Legal Summary – Oliari And Others v Italy (LS) ECHR 21-Jul-2015
ECHR Article 8
Positive obligations
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Respect for private life
Lack of legal recognition of same-sex partnerships: violation
Facts – The . .
Cited by:
Cited – Steinfeld and Another v Secretary of State for Education CA 21-Feb-2017
Hetero Partnerships – wait and see proportionate
The claimants, a heterosexual couple complained that their inability to have a civil partnership was an unlawful discrimination against them and a denial of their Article 8 rights. The argument that the appellants’ case did not come within the ambit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Family, Discrimination
Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550729
