The ECtHR delivered a ruling against Russia on same-sex couples

First, it is important at least because the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR considered a case against a terrorist country for the first time after its expulsion from the Council of Europe and the Convention. Quite expectedly, the Court confirmed that Russia’s international legal obligations did not magically disappear on the night of September 16, 2022. And that is why the Court has jurisdiction in disputes concerning Russia’s actions committed before that date.

Secondly, this is not the first time that the Court refers to the obligation to regulate the cohabitation of same-sex couples in the context of Article 8 of the Convention. Previously, he had already confirmed it in a number of cases against Italy (Ollari and others v. Italy, Orlandi and others v. Italy), and in the current decision the Court systematized the approach formed as

Secondly, this is not the first time that the Court refers to the obligation to regulate cohabitation of same-sex rights in the context of Article 8 of the Convention. Previously, he had already confirmed it in a number of cases against Italy (Ollari and others v. Italy, Orlandi and others v. Italy), and in the current decision he systematized the approach formed today.

So (get the kids away from the screen and quite your inner russian, because this is about to get scary):

• ECtHR confirmed, that states have no obligation to legalize same-sex marriages (phew, you can breath out a little);
• at the same time, they cannot remain blind to the everyday needs of same-sex couples (in particular, in the context of inheritance, taxation, mutual support, etc.)
• and no, ordinary civil legal instruments, such as “write anything in the contract and live by it”, are not enough for this;
• therefore, given the broad consensus among member states (30 out of 46 have already regulated same-sex relationships in some way), all parties to the Convention have a positive obligation to regulate the cohabitation of same-sex couples, in particular to recognize their subjectivity and provide them with effective legal instruments;
• the form of such regulation is determined by the particular state within the margin of appreciation, and it does not have to be marriages (at least the left something, those villains).

And, of course, the Court found a violation in the actions of Russia, which actively denied all of the above, covering itself with “morality”, spiritual anchors and (of course, here they are) children. We won’t be like that, will we?

You may see the text of the Judgement here: CASE OF FEDOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA