Abstract
The traditional problem of ‘limping relationships’ in private international law is emerging more and more often with regard to same-sex couples. In fact, the question of validity under the applicable choice-of-law rules is seldom raised in the State of registration of the partnership or in the State of celebration of the marriage, but can come to light when the couple moves to another country. However, it is often argued that this can amount to a violation of principles concerning fundamental rights and granting a cross-border continuity of status and familial relationships. The chapter examines in turn the type of proceedings in which the question of validity of the same-sex relationship instituted abroad can actually arise and the solutions resorted to by national courts in order to deal with that question. The chapter outlines the different attitudes of States in that connection, depending on whether they grant same-sex couples access to marriage or to civil unions only, or they do not recognise same-sex relationships as legal. The latter case obviously proves to be the most troublesome, since national courts feel forced to refuse recognition of foreign same-sex relationships, regarded either as non-existent for the lack of an essential requirement (the opposite sex of the spouses/partners) or as contrary to the public policy of the State concerned.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For this reason a number of conventions have been concluded in order to ensure recognition of divorce judgments and avoid the creation of limping statuses: see, e.g., Bellet and Goldman, Explanatory Report on the 1970 Hague Divorce Convention, p. 2.
- 2.
A direct parallel between underage marriage and same-sex marriage is drawn by Adams (1996), pp. 111–115, who recalls how in common law the distinction between choice-of-law rules concerning formal and essential validity was developed in order to avoid evasion of age requirements.
- 3.
- 4.
See Marchadier (2007), pp. 24–41.
- 5.
Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, n. 76240/01, judgment of 28th June 2007.
- 6.
Negrepontis-Giannisis v. Greece, n. 56759/08, judgment of 3rd May 2011.
- 7.
The expression is borrowed from Franzina (2011), p. 611.
- 8.
D’Avout (2010), p.170.
- 9.
As soon as civil unions began to appear in the legislation of some States, some scholars pledged for the necessity of an original approach to that institution in conflict of laws, suggesting that neither the choice-of-law rules regarding contracts nor those regarding marriage would lead to convincing results: see, e.g., Fulchiron (2000), p. 889.
- 10.
Tonolo (2007), pp. 144–150.
- 11.
Requirements of residence must be met especially for the registration of civil unions in most States: see Wautelet (2012), p. 158.
- 12.
- 13.
Adams (1996), pp. 114–115.
- 14.
See Jessica Port v. Virginia Anne Cowan, No. 69, September Term, 2011 (Court of Appeals of Maryland); Paula Christiansen v. Victoria Lee Christiansen, 2011 WY 90, 253 P.3d 153.
- 15.
The approach was criticized, as concerns Belgium, by Renchon (2004).
- 16.
For an appraisal of the resolutions see Orejudo Prieto de los Mozos (2006).
- 17.
See Tribunal de grande instance Chambery, judgement of 11 October 2013, reported at conflictoflaws.net. Accessed 23 October 2013.
- 18.
The answer of the Attorney General is available, in its entirety, at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/01/12/pol-harper-same-sex-marriage.html. Accessed 20th January 2013.
- 19.
The bill is now law, having been granted royal assent. See Bill C-32: An Act to Amend the Civil Marriage Act at http://www.parl.gc.ca. Accessed 23 October 2013.
- 20.
For an appraisal of the Convention, see Marchisio (2009).
- 21.
Silberman (2005), pp. 2198–2208, distinguishes an “evasion scenario” and a “mobile marriage scenario”; such a distinction would be relevant in U.S. interstate conflict of laws also in terms of validity of the marriage, according to the author.
- 22.
Under Article 2 of the Dutch Wet Confliktenrecht Huwelijk same-sex couples are eligible for marriage only if at least one of the spouses is resident in the Netherlands or possesses Dutch nationality or if each of the spouses meets the requirements of his/her national law. Under Article 46 of the Belgian Code of Private International Law a couple may enter into same-sex marriage if at least one of the spouses resides in or is national of a State whose law allows such a marriage. Under Article 5 of the Norwegian Marriage Act access to marriage is restricted to nationals or residents in Norway. In Sweden only Swedish law applies to the requirements for marriage if at least one of the spouses has his/her residence in Sweden or is a Swedish national; otherwise, each of the spouses must meet the requirements under his/her national law or the law of the State where he/she resides. In Canada same-sex marriage is open also to non-domiciled couples only when it is valid under the law of domicile of each spouse.
- 23.
Wautelet (2012), p. 149, recalls that “in most countries, it seems that the fact that the marriage will not be recognized in the country of one of the spouses, is not taken into account”.
- 24.
As concerns U.S. interstate practice, a similar classification can be found also in Cossman (2008), pp. 158–161.
- 25.
Corte di cassazione, judgment of 15th March 2012 No. 4184 (in Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, 2012, pp. 747–767).
- 26.
Tribunale of Treviso, judgment of 19th May 2010 (in Diritto di Famiglia, 2011, p. 1236).
- 27.
The judgment is cited in Einhorn (2008), p. 227, fn. 20.
- 28.
Wilkinson v Kitzinger [2006] EWHC 2022 (Fam).
- 29.
La France reconnaît le mariage d’un couple d’hommes néerlandais. http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2008/09/05/la-france-reconnait-le-mariage-d-un-couple-d-hommes-neerlandais_1091846_3214.html. Accessed 15th January 2013.
- 30.
Other national jurisdictions were confronted with similar issues in tax law: see e.g. Tribunal administratif du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 8th August 2007, http://www.ja.etat.lu/22355.doc. Accessed 7 January 2013. However, the application was declared inadmissible for procedural reasons.
- 31.
Martinez v County of Monroe, 2008 NY Slip Op 00909 [50 Ad3d 189].
- 32.
For the decision of the Court of Appeals see Windsor v United States, No. 12-2335-cv(L), slip op (2d Cir. 18th October 2012). The Supreme Court affirmed the decision in June 2013: see http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf. Accessed 23 October 2013.
- 33.
Soto Moya (2009), pp. 697–702.
- 34.
Tribunale of Reggio Emilia, order of 13th February 2012, at http://www.asgi.it/public/parser_download/save/tribunale_reggio_emilia_decreto_13022012.pdf. Accessed 5 January 2013. For a different case in migration matters, concerning a de facto partnership between an Italian citizen and a New Zealander, though certified by the authorities of New Zealand, see Corte di cassazione, judgment of 17th March 2009 No. 6441 (in Foro italiano, 2009, I, 2076).
- 35.
VG Karlsruhe, 9 September 2004, in IPRax, 2006, p. 284.
- 36.
Tribunal administratif du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 3rd October 2005, http://www.ja.etat.lu/19509.doc. Accessed 7th January 2013.
- 37.
Paula Christiansen v Victoria Lee Christiansen, 2011 WY 90, 253 P.3d 153.
- 38.
The approach is consistent with the idea that same-sex marriage is not a different legal institution from opposite-sex marriage and that similar rules should therefore apply. See Orejudo Prieto de los Mozos (2006), p. 300.
- 39.
It is worth noting that a reference to the rules contained in the Regulation is made by regulations adopted under Section 225 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Part 3) for Scotland, as regards civil partnerships (see Carruthers 2006, p. 8). The Regulation is also supposed to apply to proceedings for divorce and for dissolution of civil unions in the Netherlands (Curry-Sumner 2007, p. 11).
- 40.
Boele-Woelki (2008), p. 1972.
- 41.
See Joslin (2011), pp. 1713–1715.
- 42.
Tarasen (2012), pp. 1601–1606.
- 43.
A provision of this kind was introduced in Canada by the above mentioned legislative bill amending the Civil Marriage Act (supra, note 20).
- 44.
See e.g., in Spain, the Resolution of the Direcciòn General de los Registros y de Notariado of 29th July 2005, available at http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2005/08/08/pdfs/A27817-27822.pdf. Accessed 18th January 2013.
- 45.
For the meaning of the expression see Boele-Woelki (2008), p. 1967.
- 46.
Such a solution is envisaged, for Sweden, by Bogdan (2009), p. 259.
- 47.
Supra, note 43. For a criticism see Álvarez Gonzàlez (2006), p. 58.
- 48.
The judgment is summarized at http://conflictoflaws.net:80/2011/recognition-and-proprietary-consequences-of-a-uk-civil-partnership-in-south-africa. Accessed 16th January 2013.
- 49.
McK Norrie (2009), p. 353.
- 50.
For similar provisions in Dutch and Belgian law see Wautelet (2012), pp. 171–172.
- 51.
Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny, 8th June 2010 (unpublished).
- 52.
Section 215 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 can be coupled with Article 45.3 of the Swiss Private International Law Act, which reads “Un mariage valablement célébré à l’étranger entre personnes du même sexe est reconnu en Suisse en tant que partenariat enregistré”.
- 53.
Boele-Woelki (2008), p. 1968.
- 54.
VG Berlin, 15 June 2010, 23 A 242.08, in IPRax, 2011, p. 270. Some scholars had already argued that such a solution could be reached even in the silence of art. 17b EGBGB: see Mankowski (2003), pp. 820–821.
- 55.
For instance, Tribunale of Latina, decree of 10th June 2005 (in Foro italiano, 2006, I, p. 287).
- 56.
See also Winkler (2011), p. 1244.
- 57.
For instance, in Zappone and Gilligan v. Revenue Commissioners the High Court confines itself to recalling that both the spouses have their domicile in Ireland and are Irish citizens. In its judgment of 15th March 2012 No. 4184 the Corte di cassazione recalled in general terms that under Article 27 of the Italian Statute on Private International Law the capacity to marry is governed by the national law of each of the spouses, but did not elaborate on the subject with reference to the factual background of the case.
- 58.
Corte d’Appello of Rome, decree of 13th July 2006 (in Foro italiano, 2008, I, 3695).
- 59.
Corte di cassazione, judgment of 12th March 2012 No. 4184.
- 60.
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29th April 2004 concerning the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (Art. 2), OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77. On this Directive see the chapter by Rijpma and Koffeman in this volume.
- 61.
Tribunale of Reggio Emilia, order of 13th February 2012.
- 62.
Garcia Avello, C-148/02, judgment of 2nd October 2003 [2003] ECR I-11613.
- 63.
Grunkin and Paul, C-353/06, judgment of 14th October 2008 [2008] ECR I-7639.
- 64.
Tomasi (2007), pp. 81–87.
- 65.
Grunkin and Paul, judgment of 14th October 2008, para 23–28.
- 66.
- 67.
Akrich, C-109/01, judgment of 23rd September 2003 [2003] ECR, I-9607.
- 68.
Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, n. 30141/04, judgment of 22nd November 2010. On this judgment see the chapter by Pustorino in this volume.
- 69.
Franzina (2011), p. 613, stresses, as well, the need for a case-by-case assessment of the circumstances that could result into a violation of rights protected by the ECHR.
- 70.
See also Pirrone (2009).
- 71.
Tribunale of Latina, decree of 10th June 2005.
- 72.
All the judgments in matters of foreign same-sex marriages agree on this course of reasoning: see Paula Christiansen v Victoria Lee Christiansen, 2011 WY 90, 253 P.3d 153; Martinez v County of Monroe, 2008 NY Slip Op 00909 [50 Ad3d 189]; Jessica Port v Virginia Anne Cowan, No. 69, September Term, 2011 (Court of Appeals of Maryland).
- 73.
For a comparison between the situation in the United States after the DOMAs and the situation in the European Union, see Mosconi and Campiglio (2012), pp. 311–316.
- 74.
See, among others, Kropholler (2006), pp. 244–259.
- 75.
For a critical description of the functioning of the so-called effet attenué de l’ordre public, see Bucher (1993), pp. 47–52.
- 76.
An appraisal of recent French case-law based on that approach can be found in Feraci (2012), pp. 14–19.
References
Adams WA (1996) Same-sex relationships and Anglo-Canadian choice of law: an argument for universal validity. Canadian Yearbook Int Law 114:103–136
Álvarez Gonzàlez S (2006) El impacto de la admission del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo en el derecho español: perspectiva internacional. In: Navas Navarro S (ed) Matrimonio Homosexual y Adopciòn. Reus, Madrid, pp 45–73
Boele-Woelki K (2008) The legal recognition of same-sex relationships within the European Union. Tulane Law Rev 82:1949–1981
Bogdan M (2009) Private international law aspects of the introduction of same-sex marriages in Sweden. Nordic J Int Law 78:253–261
Bucher A (1993) L’ordre public et le but social de lois en droit international privé. Recueil des Cours 239:9–116
Calvo Caravaca A-L, Carrascosa Gonzàlez J (2005) Derecho internacional privado y matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. Anales de la Universidad de Murcia - Derecho 23:11–70
Carruthers JM (2006) Scots rules of private international law concerning homosexual couples. Electronic J Comp Law 10:1–16
Cossman B (2008) Betwixt and between recognition: migrating same-sex marriages and the turn toward the private. Law Contemp Probl 71:153–169
Curry-Sumner I (2007) Private international law aspects of homosexual couples. The Netherlands report. Electronic J Comp Law 11:1–16
D’Avout L (2010) Droits fondamentaux et coordination des ordres juridiques en droit privé. In: Dubout E, Touzé S (eds) Les droits fondamentaux: charnières entre ordres et systèmes juridiques. Pedone, Paris, pp 159–192
Einhorn T (2008) Same-sex family unions in Israeli law. Utrecht Law Rev 4:222–235
Feraci O (2012) L’ordine pubblico nel diritto dell’Unione europea. Giuffré, Milan
Franzina P (2011) Some remarks on the relevance of Article 8 of the ECHR to the recognition of family status judicially created abroad. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 5:609–616
Fulchiron H (2000) Réflexions sur les unions hors mariage en droit international privé. Journal de droit international 127:889–913
Fulchiron H (2006) Mariage et partenariats homosexuels en droit international privé français. Revue international de droit comparé 58:409–438
Gannagé L (2001) La hiérarchie des normes et les méthodes du droit international privé: étude de droit international privé de la famille. L.G.D.J, Paris
Honorati C (2009) Free circulation of names for EU citizens? Il diritto dell’Unione europea 14:379–401
Joslin CG (2011) Modernizing divorce jurisdiction: same-sex couples and minimum contacts. Boston Univ Law Rev 91:1669–1721
Kinsch P (2005) Droits de l’homme, droit fondamentaux et droit international privé. Recueil des Cours 318:9–332
Kropholler J (2006) Internationales Privatrecht, 6th edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Mankowski P (2003) Artt. 13-17b EGBGB. In: von Staudinger J (ed) Kommentar zum BGB. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 1–901
Marchadier F (2007) Les objectifs généraux du droit international privé à l’épreuve de la CEDH. Bruylant, Brussels
Marchisio M (2009) Les conventions de la Commission internationale de l’État civil. In: Bariatti S, Venturini G (eds) Liber Fausto Pocar. Giuffré, Milan, pp 659–673
McK Norrie K (2009) Recognition of overseas same-sex relationships in New Zealand. N Z Universities Law Rev 23:339–367
Meeusen J (2010) The Grunkin and Paul judgment of the ECJ, or how to strike a delicate balance between conflict of laws, union citizenship and freedom of movement in the EC. Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 18:189–201
Mosconi F, Campiglio C (2012) I matrimoni tra persone dello stesso sesso: livello “federale” e livello statale in Europa e negli Stati Uniti. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 48:299–316
Orejudo Prieto de los Mozos P (2006) Private international law problems relating to the celebration of same-sex marriages. Yearbook Private Int Law 8:299–306
Pirrone P (2009) Limiti e ‘controlimiti’ alla circolazione dei giudicati nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani: il caso Wagner. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 3:151–168
Renchon J-L (2004) L’avènement du mariage homosexuel dans le Code civil belge. Revue belge de droit international et comparé 81:169–207
Silberman L (2005) Same-sex marriage: refining the conflict of laws analysis. Univ Pa Law Rev 153:2195–2214
Soto Moya M (2009) Matrimonio, orinetaciòn sexual y integraciòn del extranjero. In: Sanchez Lorenzo S (ed) La integraciòn de los extranjeros. Un analisis trasversal desde Andalucìa. Atelier, Barcelona, pp 685–715
Tarasen N (2012) Untangling the knot: finding a forum for same-sex divorces in the state of celebration. Univ Chic Law Rev 78:1585–1626
Tomasi L (2007) La tutela degli status familiari nel diritto dell’Unione europea. CEDAM, Padua
Tonolo S (2007) Le unioni civili nel diritto internazionale privato. Giuffré, Milan
Wautelet P (2012) Private international law aspects of same-sex marriages and partnerships in Europe – Divided we stand? In: Boele-Woelki K, Fuchs A (eds) Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Europe. Intersentia, Mortsel, pp 143–223
Winkler MM (2011) Ancora sul rifiuto di trascrizione in Italia di same-sex marriage straniero: l’ennesima occasione mancata. Diritto di Famiglia 39:1239–1253
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Biagioni, G. (2014). On Recognition of Foreign Same-Sex Marriages and Partnerships. In: Gallo, D., Paladini, L., Pustorino, P. (eds) Same-Sex Couples before National, Supranational and International Jurisdictions. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35434-2_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35434-2_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-35433-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-35434-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)