Italy violated ECHR by refusing a residence permit to a same-sex partner - judgment in Taddeucci and McCall v Italy

The European Court of Human Rights has today issued its judgment in Taddeucci and McCall v Italy. The case, which I described here, was brought by Mr Taddeucci (an Italian national) and Mr McCall (a New Zealand national) who complained about the refusal of Italian authorities to grant Mr McCall a residence permit on family grounds. The applicants alleged that this amounted to discrimination based on their sexual orientation. 

The Court has held that treating same-sex couples differently to opposite-sex couples, for the purposes of granting residence permits for family reasons, violated the applicants' right to freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation in the enjoyment of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention. Thus, there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.

Of particular interest is the concurring opinion of Judge Spano (the Icelandic judge) who was joined by Judge Bianku:

1. I will not express a view on the Court’s current case-law granting deference to the Member States in deciding whether to legalise same-sex marriage. As things stand, that is the position of the Court, one by which I am bound on the basis of the principle of stare decisis. However, as recognised in Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (no. 30141/04, § 105, ECHR 2010), things may change. 

2. I am writing separately to highlight the fact that although States are not under an obligation to afford same-sex couples access to the institution of marriage, that does not mean that these individuals are unable to find sanctuary in this Court when invoking the right to respect for their family lives in particular contexts. On the contrary, if States decide to exclude same-sex couples from being able to marry, such a decision may have consequences when this Court is called upon to examine a claim of unjustified discrimination within a specific context that falls within the ambit of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.

3. As Italy decided to afford foreign nationals the ability to request residence permits if they were “family members” of citizens, the application of that system of domestic law could not be discriminatory (see E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 49, 22 January 2008). It follows that the impossibility in Italy at the material time for same-sex couples to acquire marital status or other legal recognition of their relationship could not, under any reasonable interpretation of Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, have made their relationships any less worthy of being treated as constituting a family unit within the particular context of immigration proceedings. The judgment does nothing more than require Italy to take due account of the existence of a serious and stable same-sex relationship in this specific context. The Court thus firmly rejects the argument that States can legitimately invoke the concept of the “traditional family” as a basis for denying a request for a residence permit made by a foreign national who is in a relationship with a citizen of the same sex.

4. In conclusion, the fundamental principle of human dignity, which is one of the cornerstones of Article 8 of the Convention, guarantees to each and every individual the right to found a family with whomever they choose, irrespective of their sexual identity or sexual orientation.