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
19 Juli 2021
All Eyes on LGBTQI Rights
In Fedotova v Russia, the ECtHR found that Russia overstepped the boundaries of its otherwise broad margin of appreciation because it had “no legal framework capable of protecting the applicants’ relationships as same-sex couples has been available under domestic law”. The case foreshadows a future wherein the familiar line of cases advancing the protection of same sex couples will need to be complemented by a jurisprudence that engages with the backslash against LGBTQI rights. Continue reading >>
0
16 Juli 2021
Will Russia Yield to the ECtHR?
On 13 July 2021, the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment in Fedotova and Others v. Russia, a case which concerned the lack of legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the Russian legal system. The judges found the Russian laws to be in violation of Article 8 – the right to respect for private and family life and Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination. However, it is highly unlikely that Russia will enforce the judgment. Continue reading >>10 Juni 2018
Is the Reasoning in „Coman“ as Good as the Result?
The Court of Justice of the European Union has not always enjoyed the reputation of being particularly LGBT-friendly, but its standing among those pushing for the better protection of rights of same-sex couples is likely to have improved considerably following Coman. While I agree with the substantive result of the decision, I am uncertain if the CJEU’s reasoning is equally convincing. My two main points of critique concern the interpretative techniques applied and the relationship between national identity and fundamental rights. Continue reading >>
0
05 Juni 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 >>11 Juli 2017
Marriage Equality and the German Federal Constitutional Court: the Time for Comparative Law
The enactment of marriage equality in Germany two weeks ago has sparked a constitutional debate that is taking place in Verfassungsblog like in many other media. There will probably be constitutional challenges to the introduction of marriage for same-sex couples in German law at the level of ordinary laws and without amendment of the German Basic Law, because many believe that a constitutional amendment would have been required. Hence, as it very often happens in Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court will very likely have to decide on the question. However, in the international scene of constitutional jurisdictions it will not need to break any ice. Continue reading >>10 Juli 2017
„Ehe für alle“ eher nicht: Traditionalismus und Staatshomophobie – Russlands Weg im Umgang mit Diskriminierung
Homophobe Rechtspraktiken in Russland haben eine lange Tradition, die von der russischen Regierung wie auch von der russisch-orthodoxen Kirche bewahrt werden. Das ohnehin schon zerrüttete Verhältnis Russlands zum EGMR wird durch das jüngste Urteil des Gerichtshofes zu einer Verurteilung wegen „Propaganda für Homosexualität“ weiter auf die Probe gestellt. Continue reading >>
0
09 Juli 2017
Warum das Grundgesetz die Ehe für alle verlangt (II)
Kann man die Verfassungsmäßigkeit der Ehe für alle aus der Entstehungsgeschichte des Grundgesetzes folgern? Mathias Hong antwortet seinen Kritikern. Continue reading >>06 Juli 2017