The claimant heterosexual couple wanted to enter into a civil partnership rather than to marry.
Held: The request for judicial review failed. On the authorities, the bar did not fall within the scope or ambit of Article 8. The appellants could marry and thus enter into a legal relationship according full protection to all the core values of Article 8: ‘This is not a case where the appellants cannot achieve formal state recognition of their relationship, with all the rights, benefits and protections that flow from such recognition: on the contrary it is open to them to obtain that recognition by getting married.’
Any interference with their private life was even more tenuous as there is no evidence that they were subjected to humiliation, derogatory treatment or any other lack of respect for their private lives: ‘The only obstacle to [the appellants] obtaining the equivalent legal recognition of their status and the same rights and benefits as a same-sex couple is their conscience.’ There was, she held, no indication in the cases from the ECHR that there was interference with the core values of Article 8 in these circumstances.
If she was wrong about the ambit of Article 8, the Secretary of State was justified under Article 14 in maintaining the bar until more years’ data was available on the formation and dissolution of CPs. This would put the Secretary of State in a better position to evaluate the impact of the 2013 Act on CPs before taking any legislative steps, and the appellants were not disadvantaged.
Andrews DBE J
[2016] EWHC 128 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 64, [2016] 1 FLR 1034, [2016] Fam Law 296, [2016] 2 FCR 606, [2016] 4 All ER 421, [2016] 4 WLR 41, [2016] HRLR 8
Bailii, WLRD
Civil Partnership Act 2004 1, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
At Admn – Steinfeld and Keidan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for International Development (In Substitution for The Home Secretary and The Education Secretary) SC 27-Jun-2018
The applicants, an heterosexual couple wished to enter into a civil partnership under the 2004 Act, rather than a marriage. They complained that had they been a same sex couple they would have had that choice under the 2013 Act.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Human Rights
Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.559388
