“In the absence of marriage, the option of a civil union or registered partnership would be the most appropriate way for same-sex couples like the applicants to have their relationship legally recognised”, it added.
Advertisement
It follows a pattern seen in Ireland – a strongly Catholic country like Italy – where voters overwhelmingly backed legalising same-sex marriages in May.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), based in Strasbourg, France, sided unanimously with six plaintiffs today, finding Italy’s lack of legal recognition and protections for same-sex couples a human rights violation. Ivan Scalfarotto, an openly gay minister in the government, recently went on a hunger strike in protest to Italy’s failure to move forward, ending only when the lower house of the Italian parliament approved a bill legalizing same-sex unions.
But the draft legislation has been blocked in the Senate by thousands of amendments from the opposition.
The seven judges were unanimous in ruling Italy must establish civil unions, although three signed a concurring opinion arguing to limit its impact on other states.
Italy is the only major Western European country with no civil partnerships or gay marriage. This issue had previously been brought to the ECtHR in 2010 in the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, and it was ruled at that time that Article 12 of the ECHR-“men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family”-did not extend to imposing on European states the demand to recognize marriage for same-sex couples”.
By failing to introduce new legislation, his government failed to “provide for the core needs relevant to a couple in a stable committed relationship”, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Tuesday.
The decision said that “Court can not but attach some importance” to ” the continuing worldwide movement towards legal recognition” for same-sex couples.
The court agreed, and ordered Italy to pay 5,000 euros ($5,400) in damages to each of the claimants, as well as a total of 14,000 euros in costs.
Advertisement
Despite the “gradual evolution of States on the matter”, the court wrote, the judges reiterated that the “Convention does not impose an obligation on the respondent Government to grant a same-sex couple like the applicants access to marriage”.
