Strasbourg’s Response to Gay and Lesbian Parenting: Progress, then Plateau?

in The International Journal of Children's Rights
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


This article examines the advancement of parenting rights for gay and lesbian persons as established through the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It notes that, after many years of progress, this advancement has seemingly now reached a plateau. In particular, although the Court has previously been effective in ending discrimination against single gay and lesbian parents, it has been reluctant to find that discrimination against same-sex couples seeking access to joint parenting rights is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights (echr). This article examines this plateau and it questions whether consideration of the rights and interests of children could be used to overcome it. It is argued that this consideration may ultimately demand that joint parenting opportunities are made available.



BainhamA., “Homosexual Adoption: Case and Comment”, Cambridge Law Journal 67(3) (2008): 479481.

BrauchJ., “The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the Rule of Law”, Columbia Journal of European Law 11 (2005): 113151.

DalyA., “The right of children to be heard in civil proceedings and the emerging law of the European Court of Human Rights”, The International Journal of Human Rights 15(3) (2011): 441461.

KilkellyU.Complicated childhood: the rights of children in committed relationships’ in Committed Relationships and the Law, eds. O. Doyle and W. Binchy (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2007).

KilkellyU., “In Re P: Adoption, Discrimination and the Best Interests of the Child”, Child and Family Law Quarterly 22(2) (2010): 115130.

KilkellyU., “Protecting children’s rights under the echr: the role of positive obligations”, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 61(3) (2010): 245261.

KilkellyU., “The Reform of Adoption Law in Ireland – Ensuring Compliance with International Obligations”, Irish Journal of Family Law 1 (2004): 1014.

LetsasG., “Two concepts of the margin of appreciation”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26(4) (2006): 705732.

O’MahonyC., “Irreconcilable Differences? Article 8 echr and Irish Law on Non-Traditional Families”, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 26(1) (2012): 3161.

SpanoR., “Universality or Diversity of Human Rights? Strasbourg in the Age of Subsidiarity”, Human Rights Law Review 14(3) (2014): 487502.

eb v. France, Application No 43546/02, 22 Januray 2008.

Elzholz v. Germany, Application No. 25735/94, July 13 2000.

Emonet v. Switzerland, Application No. 39051/03, 13 Dec 2007.

Fretté v. France, Application No. 36515/97, 26 May 2002.

Gas and Dubois v. France, Application No. 25951/07, 15 March 2012.

Hoppe v. Germany, Application No. 28422/95, 5 December 2002.

Johnston v. Ireland, Application No. 9697/92, 18 December 1986.

Karner v. Austria, Application No. 40016/98, 24 July 2003.

Marckx v. Belgium, Application No. 6833/74, 13 June 1979.

Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, Application No. 33290/96, 21 December 1999.

Saucedo Gomez v. Spain, Application No. 37784/97, 26 January 1999.

Schalk & Kopf v. Austria, Application No. 30141/04, 24 June 2010.

X and Others v. Austria, Application No. 19010/07, 19 February 2013.

Yousef v. The Netherlands, Application No. 33711/96, 5 February 2003.


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 6 6 3
Full Text Views 3 3 3
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0