同性婚姻，歐洲人權法院究竟怎麼說？
同性婚姻，歐洲人權法院究竟怎麼說？
歐洲人權法院說
1.伴侶法若沒有包含同性戀，違反歐洲人權公約
Vallianatos and Others v. Greece,2013
2.若國家沒有提供同性戀者結婚或締結民事結合(civil union)的法律制度，違反歐洲人權公約。
在婚姻制度之外，最適當的方式是民事結合或登記伴侶制度。
Oliari and Others v. Italy,2015.para174
the Court considers that in the absence of marriage, same-sex couples like the applicants have a particular interest in obtaining the option of entering into a form of civil union or registered partnership, since this would be the most appropriate way in which they could have their relationship legally recognised and which would guarantee them the relevant protection – in the form of core rights relevant to a couple in a stable and committed relationship – without unnecessary hindrance.
3.雖然歐洲人權法院並未將婚姻限於異性結合，但究竟是否要承認同性婚姻，應留待締約國各自依據其內國社會狀況來決定。
雖然有些國家已經承認同性婚姻，但歐洲人權公約並未要求締約國有承認同性婚姻的義務。
Oliari and Others v. Italy,2015.para191
The Court notes that in Schalk and Kopf the Court found under Article 12 that it would no longer consider that the right to marry must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex. ...
The Court felt it must not rush to substitute its own judgment in place of that of the national authorities, who are best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society.
It followed that Article 12 of the Convention did not impose an obligation on the respondent Government to grant a same-sex couple like the applicants access to marriage (§§ 61-63). The same conclusion was reiterated in the more recent Hämäläinen (cited above, § 96), where the Court held that while it is true that some Contracting States have extended marriage to same-sex partners, Article 12 cannot be construed as imposing an obligation on the Contracting States to grant access to marriage to same-sex couples.
1.伴侶法若沒有包含同性戀，違反歐洲人權公約
Vallianatos and Others v. Greece,2013
2.若國家沒有提供同性戀者結婚或締結民事結合(civil union)的法律制度，違反歐洲人權公約。
在婚姻制度之外，最適當的方式是民事結合或登記伴侶制度。
Oliari and Others v. Italy,2015.para174
the Court considers that in the absence of marriage, same-sex couples like the applicants have a particular interest in obtaining the option of entering into a form of civil union or registered partnership, since this would be the most appropriate way in which they could have their relationship legally recognised and which would guarantee them the relevant protection – in the form of core rights relevant to a couple in a stable and committed relationship – without unnecessary hindrance.
3.雖然歐洲人權法院並未將婚姻限於異性結合，但究竟是否要承認同性婚姻，應留待締約國各自依據其內國社會狀況來決定。
雖然有些國家已經承認同性婚姻，但歐洲人權公約並未要求締約國有承認同性婚姻的義務。
Oliari and Others v. Italy,2015.para191
The Court notes that in Schalk and Kopf the Court found under Article 12 that it would no longer consider that the right to marry must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex. ...
The Court felt it must not rush to substitute its own judgment in place of that of the national authorities, who are best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society.
It followed that Article 12 of the Convention did not impose an obligation on the respondent Government to grant a same-sex couple like the applicants access to marriage (§§ 61-63). The same conclusion was reiterated in the more recent Hämäläinen (cited above, § 96), where the Court held that while it is true that some Contracting States have extended marriage to same-sex partners, Article 12 cannot be construed as imposing an obligation on the Contracting States to grant access to marriage to same-sex couples.
（以上都是法院說的，不是小編自個亂掰的）
所以「歐洲人權法院不承認同性婚姻是人權」這個說法，
應該再深入的分析：
就「締約國沒有義務承認同性婚」來說，是正確的；
就「締約國沒有義務保障同性伴侶」來說，是錯誤的。
所以「歐洲人權法院不承認同性婚姻是人權」這個說法，
應該再深入的分析：
就「締約國沒有義務承認同性婚」來說，是正確的；
就「締約國沒有義務保障同性伴侶」來說，是錯誤的。
留言
張貼留言