Yesterday, on 25 February 2010, the European Court of Human Rights, has its first hearing on a case regarding same-sex marriage. The Court’s hearing was on the admissibility and merits in the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria(application no. 30141/04).
Professor Robert Wintemute was granted a permission by the Court to make oral submission on behalf of the four third-party interveners: the FIDH (the Fédération Internationale des ligues des Droits de l'Homme, Paris), the ICJ (the International Commission of Jurists, Geneva), the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe, London), and ILGA-Europe (the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, Brussels).
A decision on admissibility, followed if appropriate by a judgment, will be delivered at a later date.
You can view webcast of the hearing here
Details of the case
The applicants, Horst Michael Schalk and Johann Franz Kopf, are Austrian nationals who were born in 1962 and 1960 respectively and live in Vienna. They are a same-sex couple and live together.
In September 2002 the applicants asked the competent authorities to allow them to contract marriage.
Their request was refused by the Vienna Municipal Office on the grounds that marriage could only be contracted between two persons of opposite sex. The applicants appealed before the Vienna Regional Governor and the Constitutional Court arguing that the notion of marriage had evolved over time thus having to be understood nowadays as a permanent union encompassing all aspects of life, and that the procreation and education of children were no longer a determinative factor in it. Their appeals were not successful. Both the Governor and the Constitutional Court, referring to Article 12 (right to marry) of the European Convention on Human Rights and also to Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), held that to limit the notion of marriage to the traditional concept of marriage reserved to persons of a different sex was objectively justified.
Relying on Article 12, they complain of the authorities’ refusal to allow them to contract marriage.
Relying further on Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 they complain that they were discriminated against on account of their sexual orientation since they were denied the right to marry and have no other possibility to have their relationship recognised by law. Finally, under Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property), they allege that they suffer financial disadvantages compared to married couples.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 August 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment