In the Case of X and Others v. Austria
European Court of Human Rights
App. No. 19010/07 (2013)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Under Austrian law, second-parent adoption was available to unmarried heterosexual couples but not to same-sex couples. A woman, X (plaintiff) lived in a committed relationship with her female partner (the partner) (plaintiff) and biological child (the child). The partner filed a petition to adopt the child. The court denied the partner’s application because she and X were in a same-sex relationship. The European Convention on Human Rights (the convention), also known as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, contained a provision, Article 8, that (1) recognized that everyone had the right to respect for his or her family life and (2) prohibited public authorities from interfering with that right unless the interference was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society. Article 14 of the convention provided that the rights protected by the convention, including Article 8 rights, applied without discrimination on any ground, including sex or other status. X and the partner joined with other same-sex couples (plaintiffs) and filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the Austrian government (defendant) had violated their Article 8 and Article 11 rights because Austrian law did not allow second-parent adoptions within same-sex couples.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.