婚姻平等权利的幻觉:欧盟在欧盟内部市场背景下保护公民的基本权利

Tsisia Okropiridze
{"title":"婚姻平等权利的幻觉:欧盟在欧盟内部市场背景下保护公民的基本权利","authors":"Tsisia Okropiridze","doi":"10.52340/lm.2022.02.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Coman and Others v. Romania case, The European Court of Justice by request of Romanian Constitutional Court was tasked to determine whether the term spouse includes Homosexual married couples for the purposes of EU free movement Directive 2004/38. In June 2018, The European Court of Justice has held that the term “Spouse” within the meaning of EU law with regard the freedom of residency of EU citizens and their family members includes Homosexual spouses. This Court ruling has been considered as great victory for homosexual couples striving to achieve equal rights in marriage. Yet celebration of illusionary marriage equality is exaggerated.","PeriodicalId":205708,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL \"LEGAL METHODS\"","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE ILLUSION OF THE EQUAL RIGHT TO MARRY: THE EUROPEAN UNION PROTECTING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EU INTERNAL MARKET\",\"authors\":\"Tsisia Okropiridze\",\"doi\":\"10.52340/lm.2022.02.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Coman and Others v. Romania case, The European Court of Justice by request of Romanian Constitutional Court was tasked to determine whether the term spouse includes Homosexual married couples for the purposes of EU free movement Directive 2004/38. In June 2018, The European Court of Justice has held that the term “Spouse” within the meaning of EU law with regard the freedom of residency of EU citizens and their family members includes Homosexual spouses. This Court ruling has been considered as great victory for homosexual couples striving to achieve equal rights in marriage. Yet celebration of illusionary marriage equality is exaggerated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":205708,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL \\\"LEGAL METHODS\\\"\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL \\\"LEGAL METHODS\\\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52340/lm.2022.02.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL \"LEGAL METHODS\"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52340/lm.2022.02.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在Coman等人诉罗马尼亚一案中,应罗马尼亚宪法法院的请求,欧洲法院受命根据欧盟2004/38号自由行动指令决定配偶一词是否包括同性恋已婚夫妇。2018年6月,欧洲法院裁定,欧盟法律中涉及欧盟公民及其家庭成员居住自由的“配偶”一词包括同性恋配偶。这一判决被认为是同性恋夫妇争取婚姻平等权利的巨大胜利。然而,对虚幻的婚姻平等的庆祝被夸大了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
THE ILLUSION OF THE EQUAL RIGHT TO MARRY: THE EUROPEAN UNION PROTECTING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EU INTERNAL MARKET
In Coman and Others v. Romania case, The European Court of Justice by request of Romanian Constitutional Court was tasked to determine whether the term spouse includes Homosexual married couples for the purposes of EU free movement Directive 2004/38. In June 2018, The European Court of Justice has held that the term “Spouse” within the meaning of EU law with regard the freedom of residency of EU citizens and their family members includes Homosexual spouses. This Court ruling has been considered as great victory for homosexual couples striving to achieve equal rights in marriage. Yet celebration of illusionary marriage equality is exaggerated.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
MARBURY V. MADISON: THE ART OF JOHN MARSHALL GREGORY VII AND “DICTATUS PAPAE” LEGALITY OF THE URGENT SEARCH AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE SEIZED AS A RESULT OF THE SEARCH: ANALYSES OF THE DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GEORGIA COMMENT TO THE ARTICLE 1261 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF GEORGIA HARTIAN CONCEPTION OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LAW
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1