19 July 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 July 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 June 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 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 >>11 July 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 July 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 July 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 July 2017
Warum die Ehe für alle vor dem BVerfG nicht scheitern wird (II)
Fällt nach der Einführung der Ehe für alle der grundgesetzliche und der zivilrechtliche Ehebegriff auseinander? Das wäre nicht nur für die Ehe für alle als eine politische Errungenschaft, sondern auch für das Grundgesetz selbst ausgesprochen unglücklich. Wenn der Gesetzgeber in diesem Sinne die Ehe für alle öffnet, kann das dementsprechend den verfassungsrechtlichen Ehebegriff nicht unberührt lassen. Continue reading >>02 July 2017
Warum die Ehe für alle vor dem BVerfG nicht scheitern wird
Kaum hat der Bundestag das Gesetz über die Öffnung der Ehe beschlossen, wird es schon verfassungsrechtlich diskutiert. Dass das Bundesverfassungsgericht es für verfassungswidrig erklären wird, ist wenig wahrscheinlich. Und das lässt sich auch ohne Rückgriff auf den historischen Willen des Verfassungsgebers überzeugend begründen. Continue reading >>29 June 2017