CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 septembre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 78 September 2005 B. and L. v. the United Kingdom - 36536/02 Judgment 13.9.2005 [Section IV] Article 12 Marry Prohibition on marriage of father-in-law and daughter-in-law: violation   Facts : The applicants, who are father-in-law and daughter-in-law, complain that they are prevented by law from marrying. The first applicant (B.) is the father of the second applicant’s (L.) former husband. When their respective marriages failed, the applicants moved in together with L.’s son, who is B.’s grandson but now refers to B. as “Dad”. The Marriage Act 1949 prohibits the marriage of a parent-in-law to a child-in-law unless the former spouse of each party is dead. The law was amended in 1986 and there is now no such prohibition regarding other relationships of affinity but not consanguinity, e.g. step-parent with step-child. The prohibition may be lifted by a personal Act of Parliament. There are no established criteria for such a procedure, which is at Parliament’s discretion, and legal aid is not available for the costs of obtaining a personal Act of Parliament. Law: Article 12 – The limitations imposed on the right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family must not be so severe as to impair the very essence of that right. The bar on the marriage between parents-in-law and children-in-law meant that B. and L. were unable to obtain legal and social recognition of their relationship. The fact that, hypothetically, the marriage could take place if both their former spouses died, did not remove that impairment. The same applied to the possibility of applying to Parliament as that was an exceptional and costly procedure, totally at the discretion of the legislative body and not subject to discernable rules or precedent. The bar on marriage, although pursuing a legitimate aim in protecting the integrity of the family and preventing harm to children who may be affected by the changing relationships of the adults around them, did not prevent such relationships occurring. Furthermore, since no incest, or other criminal law provisions prevented extra-marital relationships between parents-in-law and children-in-law, it could not be said that the ban on the applicants’ marriage prevented the second applicant’s son from being exposed to any alleged confusion or emotional insecurity. In a similar case to that of the applicants, Parliament had found that barring the marriage served no useful purpose of public policy. The Court considered that the inconsistency between the stated aims of the incapacity and the waiver applied in some cases undermined the rationality and logic of the law in question. In the circumstances of this case, there had been a breach of Article 12. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 14 – No separate issue arising under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 12. Article 41 – The finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. The Court made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes