Onder 2.18 Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten en van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba 6 december 2022

191. The Court notes that in Schalk and Kopf the Court found under Article 12 that it would no longer consider that the right to marry must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex. However, as matters stood (at the time only six out of forty-seven CoE member States allowed same-sex marriage), the question whether or not to allow same-sex marriage was left to regulation by the national law of the Contracting State. The Court felt it must not rush to substitute its own judgment in place of that of the national authorities, who are best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society. It followed that Article 12 of the Convention did not impose an obligation on the respondent Government to grant a same-sex couple like the applicants access to marriage (§§ 61-63). The same conclusion was reiterated in the more recent Hämäläinen (cited above, § 96), where the Court held that while it is true that some Contracting States have extended marriage to same-sex partners, Article 12 cannot be construed as imposing an obligation on the Contracting States to grant access to marriage to same-sex couples.

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/f4373ecb44965c045df3173d2c1b0720636dee3a87601e2dd5e4f7fec4271b1e | shasum -a 256