Search
Generic filters
05 June 2023

Strasbourg’s Coming Out

On June 1st, in Maymulakhin and Markiv v. Ukraine, the ECtHR determined for the first time in clear terms that the general absence of legal recognition for same-sex couples is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This marks a significant addition to the Court’s case-law concerning the rights of same-sex couples with implications for future litigation on this subject. Continue reading >>
0
09 November 2021

Stating the Obvious

On September 16th, the ECtHR has ruled in the case X v. Poland that the denial of custody of a child must not be based on the sexual orientation of a parent. According to the Court, Poland has violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights when refusing the applicant full parental rights and custody of her youngest child. This ruling comes too late for the applicant, whose child has grown up, as the decision of the ECtHR took twelve years. Neverthelesess, in the current Polish context, the finding of the Court on this case sends an important message. Continue reading >>
0
18 November 2020
,

A New Chapter in the Hungarian Government’s Crusade Against LGBTQI People

On 10 November 2020 - the same day the Hungarian National Assembly authorized the Government to rule by decree for 90 days in the state of danger - the Minister of Justice submitted a whole package of legislative reforms. Among them, the Ninth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary. Two proposed amendments would directly detrimentally affect the rights of the LGBTQI community, which, we argue, would make it extremely difficult to deconstruct the institutionalized trans- and homophobia which the government has been further entrenching for years. Continue reading >>
17 June 2020

Workplace Pride

The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton Countyon 15 June 2020 with major implications for 8,1 million LGBTQ+ workers (1 million of which transgender individuals), that now enjoy protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This contribution delves into the Court’s decision and its consequences, and also discusses its past key LGBTQ+ related rulings that have brought much-needed equality for the LGBTQ+ community in the last 20 years. Continue reading >>
0
05 June 2018

The Federal Rainbow Dream: On Free Movement of Gay Spouses under EU Law

After a pretty disappointing and self-contradictory judgement on the wedding cakes delivered yesterday by the US Supreme Court, the CJEU came up today with the long-awaited decision in the Coman case – putting a thick full stop on a long debate about the interpretation of the term ‘spouses’ under the EU Free Movement Directive. In short, the Court held that the term does cover spouses of the same sex moving to an EU Member State where a gay marriage remains unrecognized. This simple YES is a huge step forward in federalizing the EU constitutional space in a time of multiple crises. Continue reading >>
25 January 2017

Same-sex marriage before the courts and before the people: the story of a tumultuous year for LGBT rights in Romania

This article will briefly recount a particularly agitated year for LGBT rights in Romania, marked by a highly contentious campaign to amend the constitutional definition of marriage through a referendum, as well as the first referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union by the Constitutional Court, in a freedom of movement case involving a married mixed nationality same-sex couple. Continue reading >>
0
12 May 2016

Warum das Grundgesetz die Rehabilitierung strafrechtlich verfolgter Homosexueller fordert und nicht verhindert

Bundesjustizminister Heiko Maas hat angekündigt, nach der erst 1994 aufgehobenen Anti-Homosexuellen-Strafnorm § 175 StGB Verurteilte zu rehabilitieren. Das hatten zuvor Verfassungsrechtler für rechtswidrig gehalten: angeblich verstoße eine solche legislative Aufhebung von Urteilen der Justiz gegen die Prinzipien der Gewaltenteilung, der Rechtssicherheit und der Gleichheit. Halten diese Einwände näherer Betrachtung stand? Continue reading >>
Go to Top