22 Oktober 2023
When Discrimination is Not Enough
The Supreme Court, India’s apex constitutional court, recently delivered its disappointing decision in Supriyo Chakraborty v Union India (Supriyo), rejecting marriage equality in Indian law. The much-awaited decision was heard by a constitution bench (five judges) of the Supreme Court and dealt with far-reaching questions of both Indian constitutional law and family law. The decision is characteristic of the Indian Supreme Court’s ongoing phase of great deference to the executive and legislative branches but also marks a sharp and worrying break from the court’s otherwise progressive jurisprudence on issues of gender and sexuality. Continue reading >>
0 
05 Juni 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
29 Mai 2023
A Win for LGBT Rights in Namibia
In the recent case of Digashu and Seiler-Lilles the Namibian Supreme Court held that denying the recognition of same-sex spouses under the Immigration Control Act 1993 was not only a violation of the right to dignity under the Namibian Constitution, but also amounted to unfair discrimination. While limited in scope, the judgement is a win for the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons in a jurisdiction where they remain mostly unrecognized. It is also notable for its use of comparativism as a deliberative resource. Continue reading >>
0
23 Mai 2023
Florida and the New Assault on LGBT Rights
On May 17, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a raft of bills that will dramatically change the legal landscape for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. While this marks the latest escalation of Florida's crusade against LGBT people, it is not an isolated case. As state legislative sessions across the United States draw to a close, the scope and severity of legislation regulating the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people has been unprecedented. This post maps the scope and severity of the current anti-LGBT panic across the US, contextualizes its rise, and evaluates the potential for legal protection under the current state of the law. Continue reading >>
0
21 Februar 2023
Ignorance and Evil
On 2 February 2023, the Hungarian Constitutional Court published its long-awaited decision on legal gender recognition. For the first time, the Constitutional Court reviewed the provisions introduced into the Act on Registry Procedure in late May 2020 requiring the registration of the sex at birth (instead of sex) and banning any modification to that registry entry. With its decision, the Constitutional Court chose to remain concordant with the perceived political expectations, blatantly served the interest of the government majority, and echoed their fixation of biologically determined sex. Continue reading >>27 Januar 2023
No New Rights in Fedotova
In Fedotova and others v Russia issued on 17 January 2023, the ECtHR held that Russia had breached its positive obligation to secure the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention by failing to provide any form of legal recognition and protection for same sex couples. The ground-breaking aspect of the judgment is the clear rejection by the Court of the justifications advanced by the Contracting State. Continue reading >>
0
24 Januar 2023
The many troubles of the Fedotova judgment
On 17 January 2023, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Fedotova v Russia that the absence of any legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples amounts to a violation of Art. 8 of the Convention. For 30 Member States of the Council of Europe (CoE), this judgment changes nothing since their legal orders already allow same-sex couples to enter into marriage or into other forms of legally recognised relationships. For the remaining countries, however, the Fedotova judgment amounts to an external judicial pressure to change their legal landscape in a politically very sensitive area of LGBT+ rights. Fedotova is probably the most political judgment of all times. Continue reading >>
0
17 Dezember 2021
Verwandtschaft zum Zwecke der Freizügigkeit
In einem aktuellen Urteil behandelt der EuGH die Situation von Regenbogenfamilien, die in manchen Mitgliedstaaten rechtlich nicht anerkannt werden. Obwohl die EU für das Familienrecht keine Kompetenz hat, gelingt es dem Gerichtshof zumindest im Bereich der Freizügigkeit Diskriminierungen abzubauen. Ob seine Vorgaben auch umgesetzt werden, steht auf einem anderen Blatt. Denn, glaubt man den Mitgliedstaaten, steht nicht weniger auf dem Spiel als ihre „nationale Identität“. Continue reading >>09 Dezember 2021
India’s Dynamic Constitution
A set of petitions challenging India’s non-recognition of gay and transgender persons’ right to marry was listed for final hearing by the Delhi High Court on 30 November 2021, with notice subsequently having been issued to the Union Government. I argue that the Indian constitutional framework is sufficiently well-developed to recognise LGBT marriage and that in holding as much, judicial fora in India would be heavily influenced by the idea of “constitutional morality”. Continue reading >>
0
05 November 2021
Value Judgments
On 26 October 2021, the Bulgarian Constitutional Court issued a binding interpretative decision on the definition of the concept of “sex”. The Court held that “sex” can only have a binary biological meaning. Instead of engaging in a legal debate in relation to the discussed matter, the Constitutional Court chose to interpret the law through “values established in the society” that are derived from “other normative systems, such as religion, morality and custom”. The result is a judgment which not only neglects the rights and freedoms of transgender people, but also relies on a reasoning that could undermine women’s rights. Continue reading >>
0