X and Others v. Austria

Last updated
X and Others v. Austria
Submitted 5 June 2007
Decided 19 Feb 2013
Full case name X and Others v. Austria
Case typeHuman Rights
ChamberGrand Chamber
Nationality of partiesAustrian
Ruling
Austrian government discriminated against unmarried same-sex couples by not allowing them to access second-parent adoptions under s179 Austrian Civil Code
Court composition
President
Dean Spielmann
Judges
Instruments cited
European Convention on Human Rights Austrian Civil Code
Legislation affecting
Austrian Civil Code

X and Others v. Austria, Application No. 19010/07, was a human rights case that was decided in 2013 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The case concerned whether the Government of Austria had discriminated against Austrian citizens who were in same-sex relationships because the wording of the Austrian Civil Code (German: Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) did not permit unmarried same-sex couples access to legally granted second-parent adoptions, whereas it was available to unmarried heterosexual couples.

Contents

X and Others v. Austria is viewed by international legal scholars as being the first recognition of the right of unmarried same-sex couples to second-parent adoption in European States that are a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). [1] However, the European Court of Human Rights considered the ruling built on discrimination protections that have been established as part of the body of LGBT rights in Europe. [2]

Background information

LGBT adoption rights in the European Union

LGBT rights have been established in a number of different countries in a response to a shift in social attitudes towards the LGBT community. Some of those rights concern LGBT parenting which encompasses the legal provisions relevant to the paternal rights that can be granted to individuals who identify with the LGBT community.

Adoption is one of the LGBT parental rights that is recognised to exist in some European states. However, the LGBT community has historically had difficulty in being granted the legal rights to adoption and currently only 19 out of the 56 European States have made adoption legal to members of the LGBT community. [3] There was widespread public opposition against the idea of LGBT adoption, arising from concern about the developmental health of children raised in LGBT families. [4] A pervasive view existed that the biological child needs a parent of either sex to experience healthy development. [5] This view was seen to justify restricting adoption to same-sex couples. However, as social attitudes towards the LGBT community have begun to shift, the LGBT community have been incrementally granted legal rights. Scientific research into childhood development has concluded that children growing up in same-sex families are not disadvantaged.

Human rights law is a body of law that covers LGBT individuals and their right to live in society. The human rights regime is governed by the European Convention on Human Rights within the Council of Europe. Alleged violations of an individual's human rights by a contracting State within the Council of Europe can be brought before the European Court of Human Rights.

Adoption by same-sex couples had already come before the Court on a number of occasions. In 1999 the ECtHR ruled that in the context of awarding custody to one parent or another, difference in treatment based solely on considerations of sexual orientation was impermissible by the ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights first considered a lesbian or gay individual's rights to adoption in Frette v France. [6] In that case the ECtHR found that denying a single homosexual man the right to adopt a child did not violate the ECHR. In E.B and France, the ECtHR distinguished the case from Frette finding that making a distinction based on sexual orientation was impermissible under the ECHR. [7] Finally in Gas & Dubois v France [8] [9] two women living in a same-sex relationship sought an adoption order to allow one of the partner's children to be adopted by the other partner. When the French Government denied their request, they appealed to the ECtHr. However, the ECtHR found that only couples who were married could obtain this form of adoption and because the couple could not form a marriage they could not enjoy its special legal status. [10]

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights

Prior history of the case

X and her partner were living together in a stable same-sex relationship. X's partner was previously married and had given birth to a child with her husband. X's partner now had sole custody of the child. X sought court approval of the second-parent adoption such that the relationship with the biological father and his relatives under family law would cease to exist while the relationship with the biological mother would remain fully intact. However, the child's father still recognised his paternal legal rights and refused to grant his consent to the adoption. The applicants wanted the court to override the father's refusal for consent as he displayed the utmost antagonism towards the family. [11]

Austrian law recognised many different forms of adoption, however it prevented second-parent adoptions made by homosexual couples in accordance with s182(2) of the Austrian Civil Code. [12] Section 182(2) provided for second-parent adoption if the adopting parents had formed a marriage. Importantly, it did not prevent unmarried heterosexual couples from doing so. X concluded an adoption agreement and sent in to the Austrian District Court for approval, knowing it would be denied. The domestic court argued that the father refused to give his consent and that the adoption requested by them was in any case not possible under Austrian law. Upon that verdict, X and her partner applied to the Constitutional Court of Austria to have the s179 declared unconstitutional because it discriminated against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. They argued that in the case of an opposite-sex couple, the District Court would have carried out a detailed examination (as to whether override the father's refusal or not) and would have had to deliver a separate decision on this issue. However, in the applicants’ case it had denied them any inquiry of the facts on the ground that the adoption requested by them was in any case not possible under Austrian law. [13] The Constitutional Court of Austria refused to do so and rendered the request inadmissible.

Facts

X, her partner and her biological child appealed to the European Court of Human Rights and appeared as joint applicants.

After argument and deliberation the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held by a 10-7 majority that the Austrian government violated article 8 and article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights when taken together. [14] The Court distinguished Gas and Dubois v. France finding there was no legitimate and proportionate aim in restricting second-parent adoption to unmarried heterosexual couples. X and her partner were found to have been discriminated against as they could not obtain a second-parent adoption but unmarried couples living together in a stable heterosexual relationship could.

articles. 8 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights

The ECtHR observed that the three applicants lived together in a situation that was alike to that of a heterosexual family unit.

The European Convention on Human Rights provided the human rights framework which the Court examined in relation to Austrian adoption laws. Articles 8 and 14 are relevant to LGBT adoption. Article 8 provides [15] that “everyone has a right to respect for his family and private life, his home and his correspondence” and Article 14 prevents discrimination based on any grounds such as “sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”. [15] While article 8 is a substantive right conferred by the ECHR, article 14 is considered to be dependent on the other articles as it protects the freedoms that have been granted by the other articles in the Convention. [16]

The Court noted that the Austrian government did not have to extend second-parent adoptions to unmarried heterosexual couples and because it did, it was required to justify why it didn't extend it to unmarried same-sex couples also. The Austrian government argued that the Austrian Civil Code was justified on the basis that it aimed to recreate the biological circumstances of the family unit, and the margin of appreciation should be wide in the case of adoption and that no formal consensus in Europe existed on the issue of second-parent adoptions. [17] The margin of appreciation is a legal concept in the EU jurisdiction that takes a relativist stance to issues of human rights in differing European States. It allows for different standards, when European States have not formed a definite consensus on a particular issue. However, the ECtHR disagreed, finding that not extending the right to same-sex couples discriminated against those couples on the grounds that it violated their Article 8 right to respect for a private and family life when read in conjunction with Article 14.

Dissenting opinion

The seven dissenting judges also gave a combined opinion. [18] They held the denial of second-parent adoption was not a violation of the ECHR as the Court should not have examined the legislation, but rather the particular circumstances in the case, because it was uncertain whether adoption, in this case, was in the child's best interests.

Role in subsequent decisions and policy

Although the decision appears to be important in extending LGBT rights to adoption, the European Court of Human Rights themselves carefully limited the scope of their ruling. [19] It chose to frame ‘’X and Others v. Austria’’ narrowly, as a matter of alleged discrimination between unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples, rather than a ruling on the issue of second-parent adoption. [20]

However, subsequent commentators have questioned that interpretation, in effect in being that same as considering X and Others v. Austria as being the first time in which the European Court of Human Rights has recognised the right to second-parent adoption by same-sex couples. [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Court of Human Rights</span> Supranational court established by the Council of Europe

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recognition of same-sex unions in Croatia</span>

Croatia recognizes life partnerships for same-sex couples through the Life Partnership Act, making same-sex couples equal to married couples in almost all of its aspects. The Act also recognizes and defines unregistered same-sex relationships as informal life partners, thus making them equal to registered life partnerships after they have been cohabiting for a minimum of 3 years. Croatia first recognized same-sex couples in 2003 through a law on unregistered same-sex unions, which was later replaced by the Life Partnership Act. The Croatian Parliament passed the new law on 15 July 2014, taking effect in two stages. Following a 2013 referendum, the Constitution of Croatia has limited marriage to opposite-sex couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Croatia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Croatia have expanded since the turn of the 21st century, especially in the 2010s and 2020s. However, LGBT people still face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. The status of same-sex relationships was first formally recognized in 2003 under a law dealing with unregistered cohabitations. As a result of a 2013 referendum, the Constitution of Croatia defines marriage solely as a union between a woman and man, effectively prohibiting same-sex marriage. Since the introduction of the Life Partnership Act in 2014, same-sex couples have effectively enjoyed rights equal to heterosexual married couples in almost all of its aspects, except adoption. In 2022, a final court judgement allowed same-sex adoption under the same conditions as for mixed-sex couples. Same-sex couples in Croatia can also apply for foster care since 2020. Croatian law forbids all discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in all civil and state matters; any such identity is considered a private matter, and such information gathering for any purpose is forbidden as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Austria</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Austria have advanced significantly in the 21st century, and are now among the most advanced in Europe. Both male and female forms of same-sex sexual activity are legal in Austria. Registered partnerships were introduced in 2010, giving same-sex couples some of the rights of marriage. Stepchild adoption was legalised in 2013, while full joint adoption was legalised by the Constitutional Court of Austria in 2016. On 5 December 2017, the Austrian Constitutional Court decided to legalise same-sex marriage, and the ruling went into effect on 1 January 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in the Republic of Ireland</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in the Republic of Ireland are among the most advanced in Europe. Ireland is notable for its transformation from a country holding overwhelmingly conservative attitudes toward LGBT issues, in part due to the opposition by the Roman Catholic Church, to one holding overwhelmingly liberal views in the space of a generation. In May 2015, Ireland became the first country to legalise same-sex marriage on a national level by popular vote. The New York Times declared that the result put Ireland at the "vanguard of social change". Since July 2015, transgender people in Ireland can self-declare their gender for the purpose of updating passports, driving licences, obtaining new birth certificates, and getting married. Both male and female expressions of homosexuality were decriminalised in 1993, and most forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation are now outlawed. Ireland also forbids incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation. Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland explicitly protects the right to marriage irrespective of sex.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Article 3 – Prohibition of torture

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Bulgaria does not recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions. Though these issues have been discussed frequently over the past few years, no law on the matter has passed the National Assembly. In September 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ordered the government to establish a legal framework recognizing same-sex unions.

Schalk and Kopf v Austria is a case decided in 2010 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in which it was clarified that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not oblige member states to legislate for or legally recognize same-sex marriages.

Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides for two constituent rights: the right to marry and the right to found a family. With an explicit reference to ‘national laws governing the exercise of this right’, Article 12 raises issues as to the doctrine of the margin of appreciation, and the related principle of subsidiarity most prominent in European Union Law. It has most prominently been utilised, often alongside Article 8 of the Convention, to challenge the denial of same sex marriage in the domestic law of a Contracting state.

Until 2017, laws related to LGBTQ+ couples adopting children varied by state. Some states granted full adoption rights to same-sex couples, while others banned same-sex adoption or only allowed one partner in a same-sex relationship to adopt the biological child of the other.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Curaçao</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Curaçao may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Both male and female same-sex sexual activity are legal in Curaçao. Discrimination on the basis of "heterosexual or homosexual orientation" is outlawed by the Curaçao Criminal Code. Despite this, same-sex marriage and adoption are still not recognised.

Oliari and Others v. Italy is a case decided in 2015 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in which the Court established a positive obligation upon member states to provide legal recognition for same-sex couples.

The second-parent adoption or co-parent adoption is a process by which a partner, who is not biologically related to the child, can adopt their partner's biological or adoptive child without terminating the first legal parent's rights. This process is of interest to many couples, as legal parenthood allows the parent's partner to do things such as: make medical decisions, claim dependency, or gain custody in the event of the death of the biological parent.

Fedotova and Others v. Russia was a case submitted by six Russian nationals to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Azerbaijan has been a member of the Council of Europe, an international organization that focuses on strengthening democracy and human rights, since 2001. As a member, it has attracted attention for holding political prisoners, low implementation of verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and bribing Council of Europe parliamentarians to suppress negative information about its human rights record. In 2017, the Committee of Ministers launched the first ever infringement proceeding against Azerbaijan after it refused to release opposition politician Ilgar Mammadov after a 2014 ECtHR verdict that his imprisonment was unlawful. There has also been criticism of Azerbaijan's continued membership by those who believe its lack of human rights protection undermines the credibility of the Council of Europe.

Bayev and Others v. Russia was a case brought to the European Court of Human Rights by three Russian activists—Nikolay Bayev, Aleksei Aleksandrovich Kiselev, and Nikolay Alekseyev—alleging that the Russian gay propaganda law infringed on their freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 20 June 2017, the court ruled that the applicants' freedom of expression had been compromised. The only dissent was from Dmitry Dedov, the judge elected with respect to Russia.

References

  1. ↑ Kathleen A. Doty Introductory Note to X and Others v. Austria (EUR. CT. H.R.) International Legal Materials Vol 53. No.4 2014 620 at 620.
  2. ↑ Kathleen A. Doty Introductory Note to X and Others v. Austria (EUR. CT. H.R.) International Legal Materials Vol 53. No.4 2014 at 650.
  3. ↑ see: LGBT rights in the European Union
  4. ↑ see above
  5. ↑ X and Others v. Austria 53 ILM 620 at 65.
  6. ↑ X and Others v. Austria 53 ILM 620 at 620
  7. ↑ above, at 620
  8. ↑ Application no 24941/07
  9. ↑ Johnson, Paul (2012). "Adoption, Homosexuality and the European Convention on Human Rights: "Gas and Dubois v France"". The Modern Law Review. 75 (6): 1136–1149. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00939.x. ISSN   0026-7961. JSTOR   23362509. S2CID   142526538.
  10. ↑ above, at 620
  11. ↑ X and Others v. Austria no. 19010/07, 19 February 2013
  12. ↑ X and Others v. Austria 53 ILM 620 at 649.
  13. ↑ X and Others v. Austria no. 19010/07, 19 February 2013
  14. ↑ X and Others v. Austria 53 ILM 620 at 654
  15. 1 2 "European Convention on Human Rights" (PDF). 1950-11-04. Retrieved 2019-12-28.
  16. ↑ Kathleen A. Doty Introductory Note to X and Others v. Austria (EUR. CT. H.R.) International Legal Materials Vol 53. No.4 2014 620 at 620.
  17. ↑ X and Others v. Austria 53 ILM 620 at 640
  18. ↑ X and Others v. Austria 53 ILM 620 at 656.
  19. ↑ Kathleen A. Doty Introductory Note to X and Others v. Austria (EUR. CT. H.R.) International Legal Materials Vol 53, No.4 (2014) at 650.
  20. ↑ above, at 650.
  21. ↑ Kathleen A. Doty Introductory Note to X and Others v. Austria (EUR. CT. H.R.) International Legal Materials Vol 53, No.4 (2014) at 620.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.