Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T07:38:12.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fedotova v. Russ. (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2021

Eszter Polgári
Eszter Polgári*
Affiliation:
Eszter Polgári is an assistant professor and Chair of the Human Rights Program at the Department of Legal Studies of the Central European University in Vienna, Austria.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On June 13, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in Fedotova and Others v. Russia. The ECtHR found that Russia was in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for not allowing same-sex couples to have their partnerships legally recognized. The decision reflects the ECtHR's firm position: the formal recognition of partnership shall not depend on the partners' sex, and the complete exclusion of same-sex couples cannot be justified with opposing public sentiments or the need to protect traditional families. While the Fedotova ruling is the first judgment that challenged the discriminatory legislative framework in a country belonging to the Eastern Bloc of the Council of Europe, it is not unprecedented. In its judgment, the ECtHR applied the standards entrenched in the case law on the rights of same-sex partners and, although it did not address the issue of marriage equality under Article 12 of the ECHR, it did conclude that the applicants' rights under Article 8 had been violated.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , June 2022 , pp. 438 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The American Society of International Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 Fedotova v. Russia, App. Nos. 40792/10; 30538/14; 43439/14 (June 13, 2021) [hereinafter Fedatova].

2 See, e.g., Vallianatos v. Greece 2013-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 125; Oliari v. Italy, App. Nos. 18766/11; 36030/11 July 21, 2015), or Orlandi v. Italy, App. Nos. 26431/12; 26742/12; 44057/12; 60088/12 (Dec. 14, 2017).

3 For example: Hungary (2012), Slovakia (2014), Georgia (2018), Russia (2020). For further analysis see: Martijn Mos, The anticipatory politics of homophobia: explaining constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in post-communist Europe, 36 East Eur. Pol. 395 (2020).

4 Fedotova ¶ 25.

5 Constitution of Russia, art. 72(1)(g1), https://rm.coe.int/constitution-of-the-russian-federation-en/1680a1a237. See also: Elizabeth Teague, Russia's Constitutional Reforms of 2020, Russian Pol. 301, 306 (2020/5).

6 Id., arts. 79 and 125(5)(b).

7 Fedotova ¶ 34.

8 Fedotova ¶ 35.

9 Alekseyev v. Russia, App. Nos. 4916/07; 25924/08; 14599/09, ¶ 62 (Oct. 21, 2010).

10 Schalk & Kopf v. Austria 2010-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. 409, ¶ 99.

11 Kozak v. Poland, App. No. 13102/02, ¶ 98 (Mar. 2, 2010).

12 Bayev v. Russia, App. Nos. 67667/09; 44092/12; 56717/12, ¶¶ 68–69 (June 20, 2017).

13 See, e.g., Karner v. Austria 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. 199 (succession in tenancy), P.B. & J.S. v. Austria, App. No. 18984/02 (July 22, 2010) (insurance benefits), or Taddeucci & McCall v. Italy, App. No. 51362/09 (June 30, 2016) (residency rights).