X and Others v. Austria [GC] - 19010/07 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 425 (19 February 2013)

X and Others v. Austria [GC] - 19010/07 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 425 (19 February 2013)

The Court held that the difference in treatment between same-sex couples and unmarried different-sex couples regarding second-parent adoption was based on sexual orientation and was not justified by convincing reasons. The absolute prohibition prevented any meaningful examination of the child's best interests and was therefore discriminatory, violating Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 425
Parties
Applicants: X and Others; Respondent: Austria
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
19 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights (grand Chamber) / Final Judgment
Outcome
violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Second Parent Adoption, Sexual Orientation, Right to Family Life
Human Rights Law Family Law Discrimination Second Parent Adoption Sexual Orientation Right to Family Life

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X and Others

Applicants

Austria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights (grand Chamber) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impossibility of second-parent adoption in same-sex couples under Austrian law constitutes discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the difference in treatment between same-sex couples and unmarried different-sex couples regarding second-parent adoption was based on sexual orientation and was not justified by convincing reasons. The absolute prohibition prevented any meaningful examination of the child's best interests and was therefore discriminatory, violating Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.

Court Disposition

violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8

Orders

  • Austria to pay EUR 10,000 jointly to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage