Hämäläinen v Finland - disappointing but predictable Grand Chamber judgment
The European Court of Human Rights has given its Grand Chamber judgment in Hämäläinen v Finland.
The Grand Chamber has confirmed the original Chamber judgment that Finland, in requiring a transexual person to transform an opposite-sex marriage into a same-sex civil partnership in order to obtain full recognition of their gender, did not violate any aspect of the Convention.
The Court has again asserted the view that the Convention does not impose an obligation on States to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples.
The Court rejected the complain under Article 8 and, like the Chamber, did not consider it under Article 12. It further rejected the Article 14 complaint.
As I have written many times here, this outcome was predictable, not least because for the Court to have found in favour of the applicant it would have undermined all of its recent jurisprudence on same-sex marriage.
A more detailed commentary will follow...
The Grand Chamber has confirmed the original Chamber judgment that Finland, in requiring a transexual person to transform an opposite-sex marriage into a same-sex civil partnership in order to obtain full recognition of their gender, did not violate any aspect of the Convention.
The Court has again asserted the view that the Convention does not impose an obligation on States to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples.
The Court rejected the complain under Article 8 and, like the Chamber, did not consider it under Article 12. It further rejected the Article 14 complaint.
As I have written many times here, this outcome was predictable, not least because for the Court to have found in favour of the applicant it would have undermined all of its recent jurisprudence on same-sex marriage.
A more detailed commentary will follow...
Comments
Post a Comment