Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles

Same-sex couples and the harmonisation of EU matrimonial property regimes: unjustifiable discrimination or missed opportunities? [2013] CFLQ 19

Sep 29, 2018, 21:03 PM
Slug : Davis2013CFLQ19
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 2, 2013, 05:00 AM
Article ID : 102025

Keywords: Same-sex couples - matrimonial property - recognition - fundamental rights - registered partnerships

On 31 May 2012 the Fundamental Rights Agency delivered an Opinion on the Commission's proposed harmonisation measures for private international law relating to the property consequences of marriages and registered partnerships. This Opinion accuses the proposals of breaching the European Charter of Fundamental Rights because they provide for different treatment of registered partnerships, which predominantly affect same-sex couples, as opposed to marriages.

This article considers the impact of the proposals, particularly for same-sex couples, and the historical and practical reasons for according different treatment. On balance, the divergences could be considered justifiable to take account of inherent different treatment under national Member State law. The article also considers the potential pitfalls of attempting to provide for equal treatment and finds that such an attempt may well lead to disadvantages for same-sex couples. The article concludes that, given the requirement for unanimity in the Council of Ministers to progress these proposals, the advantages of the proposed rules for registered partnerships are such that the differences between the two proposals should be tolerated, rather than any measures being taken which might further impede the progress of these important initiatives.  

The full version of this article appears in issue 1 of 2013 of Child and Family Law Quarterly.  



Categories :
  • Articles
  • CFLQ
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from