Grand Chamber Judgment. The applicants alleged that the fact that the ‘civil unions’ introduced by the respondent were designed only for couples composed of different-sex adults had infringed their right to respect for their private and family life and amounted to unjustified discrimination between different-sex and same-sex couples, to the detriment of the latter.
Held: The introduction of registered partnerships only for different sex couples, to exist alongside marriage which was also only open to different sex couples, constituted a breach of article 14 read with article 8 of the Convention
Dean Spielmann, P
29381/09,  ECHR 1110, 32684/09, 36 BHRC 149, (2014) 59 EHRR 12
European Convention on Human Rights 8 14
Legal Summary – Vallianatos And Others v Greece (LS) ECHR 7-Nov-2013
ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 14
Exclusion of same-sex couples from ‘civil unions’: violation
Facts – The first application was lodged by two Greek nationals, and the second by six . .
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 . .
Cited – 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.
Human Rights, Family, Discrimination
Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517642