MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LIFE IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Authors

  • Oana Ghiţă Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Law Department University of Craiova

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15837/aijjs.v8i4.1601

Abstract

The article 8 and 12 — European Convention of Human Rights regulate the right to family and private life and, respectively, the right to marriage. These rights have been transposed into the national legislation of the States-members of European Union. The two rights that we are speaking of, which can be found as a constitutional principle and as an ordinary law, tries to reduce the public authorities interference into the private and personal family field. The reality proves that the right to marriage has been broken by the impossibility of the spouses to marry because they can not be divorced. This is the reason why we have two different rights in European Convention: the right to private, family life and the right to marriage.

Many European states still have a limited regulation of the reasons for getting the dissolution of marriage. The European Convention has nothing to do with such cases because does not regulates the right to divorce and it would be an interference into the national law. How can a person be married again if he/she doesn’t have the possibility to divorce? In these conditions, can we take the European Convention into consideration as a real instrument of protection for the right to marriage?

The first precedent of ECHR jurisprudences limits the infringement of the right to marriage made by the national Courts because of the lack of regulations or a bad interpretation of it.

References

 Popescu, Dreptul bărbatului şi al femeii de a întemeia o familie, European Centre for Law and Justice, ECLJ, 2013;

 Lavinia Cîrciumaru, I. Militaru, Dreptul la divorţ (Article 6, 8 and 12 European Court of Human Rights): Imposibilitatea unei persoane de a se recăsători izvorâtă din refuzul pronunţării divorţului pentru prima căsătorie, JurisClasor CEDO Journal, University Publishing House, Bucharest, 2012;

 Ivanov and Petrova vs. Bulgariei, Decision from 14 June 2011, http://www.hotararicedo.ro/index.php/news/category/hotarari-relevante/10.

 Wildgruber vs. Germaniei, requests nr. 42402/05 and 42423/05, http://www.hotararicedo.ro/index.php/news/2011/06/dreptul-la-divort-art.-6-8-i-12-cedo-imposibilitatea-unei-persoane-de-a-se-recasatori-izvorat-din-refuzul-pronuntarii-divortului

 Valérie Gas and Nathalie Dubois vs. France, August 31, 2010, nr. 25951/07, RR vs. Poland, May 26, 2011, nr. 27617/04, http://www.hotararicedo.ro/index.php/news/2011/06/dreptul-la-divort-art.-6-8-i-12-cedo-imposibilitatea-unei-persoane-de-a-se-recasatori-izvorat-din-refuzul-pronuntarii-divortului

 Ioana Nicolae, Instituţii ale dreptului familiei, Hamangiu Publishing House, Bucharest, 2009;

 Sonia Cososchi, Limitãri ale drepturilor garantate de art. 8 din Convenţia Europeana a Drepturilor Omului, http://soniacososchi.blogspot.ro/2008/10/limitele-de-aplicare-ale-art-8-din.html;

 Aresti Charalambous vs. Ciprului, 19 July 2007, nr. 43151/04, http://www.hotararicedo.ro/index.php/news/2011/06/dreptul-la-divort-art.-6-8-i-12-cedo-imposibilitatea-unei-persoane-de-a-se-recasatori-izvorat-din-refuzul-pronuntarii-divortului;

 Fr. Sudre, Drept european ÅŸi internaţional al drepturilor omului, Editura Polirom, BucureÅŸti, 2006;

 Christine Goodwin vs. Great Britain, nr. 28957/95, Decision from 11 July 2002, www.echr.coe.int;

 Sheffield and Horsham vs. Great Britain, nr. 22985/93 şi 23390/94, Decision from 30 July 1998;

 X.Y.Z. vs. Great Britain, Decision from 22 April 1997, par. 36, www.echr.coe.int.;

 Johnston and others vs Irland, nr. 9697/82, Decision from 18 December 1986, http://jurisprudentacedo.com/JOHNSTON-c.-IRLANDEI-Interdictie-constitutionala-a-divortului-in-Irlanda-si-consecinte-juridice-care-decurg-de-aici-pentru-un-barbat-si-o-femeie-necasatoriti-impreuna-precum-si-pentru-copilul-lor.html;

 Airey c. Irlandei, nr. 6289/73, Decision from 9 October 1979, § 24; Scoppola c. Italia (nr.2), GC, nr. 10249/03, Decision from 17 September 2009, § 104 and desident opinions;

 Marckx vs. Belgia, nr. 6833/74, Decision from 13 June 1979, Strasbourg, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57534#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57534%22]}.

Downloads

Published

2014-11-23

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.