欧洲法院判决:间接承认同性婚姻?

Milena Petrović
{"title":"欧洲法院判决:间接承认同性婚姻?","authors":"Milena Petrović","doi":"10.5937/rkspp2102077p","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the Coman case, the European Court of Justice was asked whether the term \"spouse\" - for the purpose of EU law - includes the same-sex spouse of an EU citizen who has moved between EU Member States. The ECJ answered this question affirmatively, holding that a refusal to recognise a same-sex marriage and the resultant refusal to grant family reunification rights to a Union citizen who moves to another Member State, would constitute an unjustified restriction on the right to free movement that Union citiyens enjoy under EU law. This case comment analyses the judgment, arguing that the Court's pronouncement is a very welcome first step towards marriage equality at a cross-border level in the EU. At the same time, the case poses a number of important questions, which will only be answered in case law and practice in the years to come.","PeriodicalId":236613,"journal":{"name":"Revija Kopaonicke skole prirodnog prava","volume":"187 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ECJ's Coman judgment: Recognition of same-sex marriage indirectly?\",\"authors\":\"Milena Petrović\",\"doi\":\"10.5937/rkspp2102077p\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the Coman case, the European Court of Justice was asked whether the term \\\"spouse\\\" - for the purpose of EU law - includes the same-sex spouse of an EU citizen who has moved between EU Member States. The ECJ answered this question affirmatively, holding that a refusal to recognise a same-sex marriage and the resultant refusal to grant family reunification rights to a Union citizen who moves to another Member State, would constitute an unjustified restriction on the right to free movement that Union citiyens enjoy under EU law. This case comment analyses the judgment, arguing that the Court's pronouncement is a very welcome first step towards marriage equality at a cross-border level in the EU. At the same time, the case poses a number of important questions, which will only be answered in case law and practice in the years to come.\",\"PeriodicalId\":236613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revija Kopaonicke skole prirodnog prava\",\"volume\":\"187 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revija Kopaonicke skole prirodnog prava\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5937/rkspp2102077p\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revija Kopaonicke skole prirodnog prava","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/rkspp2102077p","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在科曼案中,欧洲法院被问及“配偶”一词——出于欧盟法律的目的——是否包括在欧盟成员国之间迁移的欧盟公民的同性配偶。欧洲法院肯定地回答了这个问题,认为拒绝承认同性婚姻以及由此导致的拒绝给予移居到另一个成员国的欧盟公民家庭团聚的权利,将构成对欧盟公民根据欧盟法律享有的自由流动权利的不合理限制。本案例评论分析了判决,认为法院的声明是欧盟跨境婚姻平等的非常受欢迎的第一步。与此同时,该案件提出了一些重要问题,这些问题只有在未来几年的判例法和实践中才能得到回答。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The ECJ's Coman judgment: Recognition of same-sex marriage indirectly?
In the Coman case, the European Court of Justice was asked whether the term "spouse" - for the purpose of EU law - includes the same-sex spouse of an EU citizen who has moved between EU Member States. The ECJ answered this question affirmatively, holding that a refusal to recognise a same-sex marriage and the resultant refusal to grant family reunification rights to a Union citizen who moves to another Member State, would constitute an unjustified restriction on the right to free movement that Union citiyens enjoy under EU law. This case comment analyses the judgment, arguing that the Court's pronouncement is a very welcome first step towards marriage equality at a cross-border level in the EU. At the same time, the case poses a number of important questions, which will only be answered in case law and practice in the years to come.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信