Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

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