Persoane cu dizabilitati dating
This case reveals tensions in the Court’s jurisprudence more broadly, since on the one hand the Court emphasizes the importance of marriage justifying enhanced protection, and yet on the other it trivializes its significance in order to justify why some people (like the applicant) should be deprived of it.In addition, the Court has not considered in any detail the consequences of prolonged uncertainty and of the eventual dissolution of marriage on the applicant’s wife and minor daughter.Recent am publicat un comentariu asupra hotararii CEDO H. Finlanda, privind compatibilitatea legislatiei din acea tara care obliga persoanele trans care doresc sa-si schimbe documentele sa divorteze mai intai. Paul Johnson de la Universitatea York, Marea Britanie, ECHR Sexual Orientation Blog.
Either the Court could opt for a narrow interpretation of Article 12 as applying strictly to the foundational act of marriage.
In doing so, the Court relied heavily on its judgment in the same-sex marriage case .
In that judgment, the Court rejected the applicants’ marriage claim on the basis that Article 12 defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and, in addition, allowed States discretion to regulate the issue.
The applicant has been happily married to her wife since 1996, with whom she had a child.
Although the applicant was able to change her first name to a female name, her personal documents continue to identify her as male.
In this scenario the Court would have to examine whether legislation compelling the applicant to divorce injures the “very substance of the right” to marry in line with its previous jurisprudence.