box news grey

German Constitutional Court paves the way for joint adoption by same-sex couples | Germany

In a judgment delivered today the German Federal Constitutional Court has held that the ban of successive adoption in same-sex registered couples violates fundamental rights. Thus registered partners will be able to adopt children which their same-sex partner has adopted before so that both partners are sharing joint legal parenthood, what so far has been a privilege exclusively for married couples of opposite gender. For details and for the full text of the judgment see: www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de

Strasbourg Court finds violation in lesbian step-parent-adoption case | Council of Europe

In its judgment delivered today in the case X et al. v Austria the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that Austria violated the European Convention on Human Rights by banning step-parent adoption in same-sex couples. The judgment was taken by a majority of 10 against 7. The applicant family have been represented by ECSOL-co-coordinator Dr. Helmut Graupner. For details, for the full text of the judgment and for the webcast of the two oral hearings see: www.echr.coe.int

Constitutional Court: Same Ceremony as for Marriage | Austria

Rechtskomitee LAMBDA sees governing coalition disgraced.

In a decision delivered today the Austrian Constitutional Court has ordered to apply the same ceremony (wedding vow, witnesses etc.) for the formation of registered partnerships as for marriage. And it started proceedings to repeal the law prohibiting the performance registered partnerships outside the authority´s office-rooms. Rechtskomitee LAMBDA (RKL), Austria’s LGBT civil rights organisation, welcomes the decision and sees the federal governing coalition disgraced as just last month they have passed this law anew
.

Read more ...

European Court of Human Rights: No Right to Refuse to Serve Same-Sex Couples because of Religious Beliefs | Council of Europe

Ms Ladele was a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and Mr McFarlane a Relate counselor. They complained about their dismissal, confirmed by the British courts, for refusing to carry out certain of their duties which they considered would condone homosexuality.

The Court has held, it could not be said that national courts had failed to strike a fair balance when they upheld the employers’ decisions to bring disciplinary proceedings. In each case the employer was pursuing a policy of nondiscrimination against service-users, and the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation was also protected under the Convention.

Eweida v UK: Documents

box about us

  • What we are

box members

  • Who we are

box documents

  • Useful documents

box links

  • Useful links

box contact

  • Get in contact with us

 

logo RKL

 

 

logo fra

 

 

nefla