和科曼在一起三年:变化有多大?

Lenka Křičková
{"title":"和科曼在一起三年:变化有多大?","authors":"Lenka Křičková","doi":"10.1515/icl-2021-0039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2018, the ECJ ruled in its landmark Coman judgment (C-673/16) that same-sex spouses of EU citizens exercising their freedom of movement must be granted a right of residence even in Member States that do not recognize same-sex marriages. Looking back on the judgment after 3 years, this article reviews the academic reactions which ranged from criticism to celebration of the judgment. Using the example of the Czech Republic, it then assesses the judgment’s practical impact to see whether the initial expectations regarding future development came true, and identifies potential barriers in the national law that could still hinder free movement of same-sex couples. Finally, the article discusses what lessons can be learnt from the Coman judgment for other similar cases before the ECJ, especially those concerning the status of children born to same-sex couples. The article argues that there have been no noticeable changes in Czech law ascribable to the Coman judgment. This suggests that beyond the narrow holding strengthening the same-sex couples’ residence rights, though symbolically and practically important, possible greater impact of the Coman case on Member States’ national law should not be overestimated. However, the judgment’s significance lies in its potential to shape the future ECJ’s case-law because the free movement framework used in Coman can be similarly applied to cross-border recognition of same-sex couples and families for other purposes than residence rights. If the ECJ does so in the upcoming cases and properly tackles the Member States’ national identity or public policy objections, further developments of gay rights through EU law might take place.","PeriodicalId":41321,"journal":{"name":"ICL Journal-Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Three Years with Coman: How Much Has Changed?\",\"authors\":\"Lenka Křičková\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/icl-2021-0039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In 2018, the ECJ ruled in its landmark Coman judgment (C-673/16) that same-sex spouses of EU citizens exercising their freedom of movement must be granted a right of residence even in Member States that do not recognize same-sex marriages. Looking back on the judgment after 3 years, this article reviews the academic reactions which ranged from criticism to celebration of the judgment. Using the example of the Czech Republic, it then assesses the judgment’s practical impact to see whether the initial expectations regarding future development came true, and identifies potential barriers in the national law that could still hinder free movement of same-sex couples. Finally, the article discusses what lessons can be learnt from the Coman judgment for other similar cases before the ECJ, especially those concerning the status of children born to same-sex couples. The article argues that there have been no noticeable changes in Czech law ascribable to the Coman judgment. This suggests that beyond the narrow holding strengthening the same-sex couples’ residence rights, though symbolically and practically important, possible greater impact of the Coman case on Member States’ national law should not be overestimated. However, the judgment’s significance lies in its potential to shape the future ECJ’s case-law because the free movement framework used in Coman can be similarly applied to cross-border recognition of same-sex couples and families for other purposes than residence rights. If the ECJ does so in the upcoming cases and properly tackles the Member States’ national identity or public policy objections, further developments of gay rights through EU law might take place.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ICL Journal-Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ICL Journal-Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2021-0039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ICL Journal-Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2021-0039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2018年,欧洲法院在其具有里程碑意义的科曼判决(C-673/16)中裁定,即使在不承认同性婚姻的成员国,行使其行动自由的欧盟公民的同性配偶也必须获得居留权。本文回顾了三年后的判决,回顾了学术界对判决的反应,从批评到庆祝。然后以捷克共和国为例,评估了判决的实际影响,看看最初对未来发展的预期是否成真,并确定了国家法律中仍可能阻碍同性伴侣自由流动的潜在障碍。最后,文章讨论了在欧洲法院审理的其他类似案件中,特别是涉及同性伴侣所生子女地位的案件中,可以从科曼的判决中吸取哪些教训。文章认为,捷克法律没有因科曼的判决而发生明显变化。这表明,除了加强同性伴侣居住权的狭义判决之外,尽管具有象征意义和实际意义,但不应高估科曼案对会员国国内法可能产生的更大影响。然而,该判决的重要意义在于它有可能塑造欧洲法院未来的判例法,因为在《科曼案》中使用的自由流动框架可以类似地应用于同性伴侣和家庭的跨境承认,而不是出于居住权的目的。如果欧洲法院在即将到来的案件中这样做,并妥善处理成员国的国家身份或公共政策反对意见,那么通过欧盟法律进一步发展同性恋权利可能会发生。
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
Three Years with Coman: How Much Has Changed?
Abstract In 2018, the ECJ ruled in its landmark Coman judgment (C-673/16) that same-sex spouses of EU citizens exercising their freedom of movement must be granted a right of residence even in Member States that do not recognize same-sex marriages. Looking back on the judgment after 3 years, this article reviews the academic reactions which ranged from criticism to celebration of the judgment. Using the example of the Czech Republic, it then assesses the judgment’s practical impact to see whether the initial expectations regarding future development came true, and identifies potential barriers in the national law that could still hinder free movement of same-sex couples. Finally, the article discusses what lessons can be learnt from the Coman judgment for other similar cases before the ECJ, especially those concerning the status of children born to same-sex couples. The article argues that there have been no noticeable changes in Czech law ascribable to the Coman judgment. This suggests that beyond the narrow holding strengthening the same-sex couples’ residence rights, though symbolically and practically important, possible greater impact of the Coman case on Member States’ national law should not be overestimated. However, the judgment’s significance lies in its potential to shape the future ECJ’s case-law because the free movement framework used in Coman can be similarly applied to cross-border recognition of same-sex couples and families for other purposes than residence rights. If the ECJ does so in the upcoming cases and properly tackles the Member States’ national identity or public policy objections, further developments of gay rights through EU law might take place.
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
A Paradigm Shift for Hong Kong’s National Security Constitution – A Comparative Study of the Impact of Its National Security Law B R Ambedkar’s Multiple Consciousness and the Framing of the Indian Constitution You Cannot Have the Cake and Eat It – How to Reconcile Liberal Fundamental Rights with Answers to the Climate Crisis The Politics of Silence: Hannah Arendt and Future Generations’ Fight for the Climate A Reflection on the Methods of Interpretation of EU 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