Onder 2.24 Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten en van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba 6 december 2022

89. On this point the Court notes firstly that the Government’s arguments focus on the situation of different-sex couples with children, without justifying the difference in treatment arising out of the legislation in question between same-sex and different-sex couples who are not parents. Secondly, the Court is not convinced by the Government’s argument that the attainment through Law no. 3719/2008 of the goals to which they refer presupposes excluding same-sex couples from its scope. It would not have been impossible for the legislature to include some provisions dealing specifically with children born outside marriage, while at the same time extending to same-sex couples the general possibility of entering into a civil union. The Court points out in that connection that the explanatory report on the legislation in issue offers no insight into the legislature’s decision to limit civil unions to different-sex couples (see paragraph 10 above). It further notes that the National Human Rights Commission considered the bill to be discriminatory since it did not apply to same-sex couples (see paragraphs 23-24 above) and that the Scientific Council of Parliament adopted a similar position (see paragraph 13 above).

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