Here’s a breakdown of the Andersen v. Poland decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Poland in violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to its failure to provide a legal framework that recognizes and protects same-sex unions. The case was brought by a Polish national who married his same-sex partner in the United Kingdom but was denied registration of the marriage in Poland. The Court emphasized that while it doesn’t require member states to allow same-sex marriage, they must offer some form of legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. The lack of any such framework in Poland, according to the Court, leaves same-sex couples in a legal vacuum, violating their right to respect for private and family life. The Court dismissed the Government’s objections regarding the applicant’s victim status and the significance of the disadvantage suffered.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case concerns the lack of legal recognition in Poland for same-sex marriages contracted abroad and the absence of any alternative form of legal protection for same-sex relationships.
* **Admissibility:** The Court declared the application admissible, rejecting the Polish Government’s arguments regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and the applicant’s victim status. It affirmed that the lack of legal recognition affects the applicant’s private and family life, making Article 8 applicable.
* **Merits:** The Court referenced its previous judgments, reiterating that member states have a positive obligation to provide a legal framework for the recognition and protection of same-sex relationships. It found that Poland had failed to strike a fair balance between the prevailing interests and the applicant’s interests, thereby overstepping its margin of appreciation.
* **Article 14 in Conjunction with Article 8:** Given the finding of a violation under Article 8, the Court deemed it unnecessary to separately examine a potential violation of Article 14 (discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court held that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Positive Obligation:** The decision reinforces the principle that member states have a positive obligation under Article 8 to provide a legal framework that offers recognition and protection to same-sex couples.
* **Margin of Appreciation:** While the Court acknowledges that states have a margin of appreciation in determining the exact nature of the legal regime, the protection afforded must be adequate.
* **Legal Vacuum:** The ruling highlights that a complete absence of legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples constitutes a violation of Article 8, particularly when it leaves individuals in a “legal vacuum.”
* **Victim Status:** The Court’s dismissal of the Government’s objections regarding victim status clarifies that individuals can claim to be victims even if they reside outside of Poland, as long as the lack of legal recognition in Poland directly affects their rights and situation.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, as it underscores the importance of providing legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples, even if same-sex marriage is not permitted. It may influence future legal challenges and policy discussions related to LGBTQ+ rights in Ukraine.
