CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 17 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC1FC6E44 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF7129D5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF13A94BC { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s833B1EA7 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC0FFF6FB { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sD46FFE5D { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s695099B3 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4859184F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEAB539EC { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s70E0A597 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 85.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s554D0A64 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s72A8FB50 { width:5.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC83D396C { width:7.56pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC15FC45D { width:3.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDF290AB { width:6.61pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDBD9C8C2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-12.75pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA3740700 { margin-left:3.71pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s8EC720F9 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:32.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB3F5D3E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9005D66E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:25.1pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFB90D806 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s48FC6C54 { width:23.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7100D9DD { width:142.75pt; display:inline-block } .sA8208715 { width:9.2pt; display:inline-block } .s7BF29C1E { width:139.76pt; display:inline-block } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23341F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF FEDOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 40792/10, 30538/14 and 43439/14)     JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private and family life • Absence of any form of legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples • Confirmation of positive obligation to provide legal framework affording such couples adequate recognition and protection • Previous case-law of the Court consolidated by clear ongoing trend in legislation of majority of States Parties and converging positions of various international bodies • Margin of appreciation reduced for providing legal framework and more extensive for determining exact nature of form of recognition and content of protection • Form of marriage not required • Public-interest grounds put forward not prevailing over applicants’ interests • Margin of appreciation overstepped   STRASBOURG 17 January 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   Table of Contents PROCEDURE THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.   The applicants’ attempts to marry B.   Court proceedings 1.   Ms Fedotova and Ms Shipitko 2.   Mr Chunosov and Mr Yevtushenko 3.   Ms Shaykhraznova and Ms Yakovleva RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.   DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.   The Russian Constitution B.   The Russian Family Code C.   Case-law of the Russian Constitutional Court II.   INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE A.   United Nations 1.   Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2.   Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights B.   Council of Europe 1.   Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 2.   Parliamentary Assembly 3.   European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) 4.   Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights C.   European Union 1.   Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2.   Case-law of the CJEU 3.   European Parliament D.   Inter-American Court of Human Rights III.   COMPARATIVE-LAW MATERIAL THE LAW I.   PRELIMINARY ISSUES A.   Whether the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the case B.   Continuation of the examination of the applications C.   Scope of the case before the Grand Chamber II.   THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.   Alleged lack of victim status of the applicants B.   Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The Chamber judgment B.   The parties’ submissions before the Grand Chamber 1.   The applicants 2.   The Government 3.   Submissions of third-party interveners (a)   Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (b)   LGB Alliance (c)   ACCEPT Association, Youth LGBT Organisation Deystvie, the National LGBT Rights Organisation LGL, the “Love Does Not Exclude” Association, the Polish Society of Anti-Discrimination Law, Iniciativa Inakost, Insight Public Organisation and Sarajevo Open Centre, acting jointly (d)   Russian LGBT Network and Sphere Foundation, acting jointly (e)   Human Rights Centre of Ghent University (f)   The AIRE Centre, jointly with the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Network of European LGBTIQ+ Families Associations (NELFA) (g)   The Euroregional Center for Public Initiatives (ECPI) and the Global Justice Institute (GJI) C.   The Court’s assessment 1.   Applicability of Article 8 of the Convention (a)   Private life (b)   Family life (c)   Conclusion 2.   Compliance with Article 8 of the Convention (a)   Whether there is a positive obligation to provide legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples (b)   Scope of the national authorities’ margin of appreciation (c)   Whether the respondent State has satisfied its positive obligation (d)   Conclusion IV.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 8 A.   The Chamber judgment B.   The parties’ submissions C.   The Court’s assessment V.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage B.   Costs and expenses OPERATIVE PROVISIONS PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PAVLI, JOINED BY JUDGE MOTOC DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE WOJTYCZEK DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE POLÁČKOVÁ DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE LOBOV APPENDIX   In the case of Fedotova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Robert Spano,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Síofra O’Leary,   Georges Ravarani,   Marko Bošnjak,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Branko Lubarda,   Yonko Grozev,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková,   Tim Eicke,   Darian Pavli,   Frédéric Krenc,   Mikhail Lobov, judges , and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 27 April and 12 October 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in three applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six   Russian nationals whose names and personal details are listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on 20   July 2010, 5 April 2014 and 17 May 2014. 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court until 6 April 2022 by Mr   E. Daci and Mr   B. Cron, lawyers practising in Geneva. After that date Ms   Fedotova (application no. 40792/10), Mr Chunosov and Mr   Yevtushenko (application no. 30538/14) and Ms Shaykhraznova (application no.   43439/14) were represented by Ms   O. Gnezdilova, a lawyer practising in Berlin. 3.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented successively by Mr G. Matyushkin, Mr M. Galperin and Mr A. Fedorov, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and later before the Grand Chamber by their successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov. 4.     The applicants alleged that they were unable to have their respective relationships recognised and protected by law, on account of the Russian authorities’ refusal to allow them to marry and in the absence of any other form of legal recognition and protection of same-sex couples in Russia. 5 .     The applications were allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court).   On 2 May 2016 the Section President declared the complaints under Article 12 of the Convention inadmissible under Rule   54 §   3. Notice of the complaints concerning Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention was given to the Government. 6.     On 13 July 2021 a Chamber of the Third Section, composed of Paul Lemmens, President, Georgios A. Serghides, Dmitry Dedov, María Elósegui, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Peeter Roosma and Andreas Zünd, judges, and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, delivered a judgment in which, unanimously, it joined the three applications, declared them admissible, held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and found that there was no need to examine the merits of the complaints under Article   14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. A joint separate opinion by Judges Lemmens and Zünd was annexed to the judgment. 7.     In a letter of 12 October 2021, the Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 of the Convention.   On 22   November 2021 the panel of the Grand Chamber granted that request. 8.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule   24.   A public hearing was scheduled for 27 April 2022. 9.     The applicants and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1). 10.     Ms Dunja Mijatović, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (“the Commissioner”), exercised her right to intervene in the proceedings and submitted written comments (Article 36 §   3 of the Convention and Rule 44 §   2). 11.     In addition, third-party comments on the merits were received from: –     LGB Alliance ; –     ACCEPT Association jointly with the Youth LGBT Organisation Deystvie, the National LGBT Rights Organisation LGL, the “Love Does Not Exclude” Association, the Polish Society of Anti-Discrimination Law, Iniciativa Inakost, Insight Public Organisation and Sarajevo Open Centre; –     the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University ; –     the Euroregional Center for Public Initiatives (ECPI), jointly with the Global Justice Institute (GJI); –     the AIRE Centre, jointly with the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Network of European LGBTIQ+ [1] Families Associations (NELFA); and –     the Russian LGBT Network, jointly with Sphere Foundation . The President had given leave to those third parties to intervene in the written procedure, under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2. 12 .     On 16 March 2022 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in the context of a procedure launched under Article 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, adopted Resolution CM/Res(2022)2, by which the Russian Federation ceased to be a member of the Council of Europe as from 16   March 2022 . 13 .     On 22 March 2022 the Court, sitting in plenary session in accordance with Rule 20 § 1, adopted the “Resolution of the European Court of Human Rights on the consequences of the cessation of membership of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe in light of Article 58 of the European Convention on Human Rights”. It stated that the Russian Federation would cease to be a High Contracting Party to the Convention on 16   September 2022. 14 .     By a letter of 28 March 2022, the Government stated that “in the present circumstances the Russian Federation consider no need for oral hearing scheduled for 27 April 2022”. The applicants were invited to state their position on the matter. In a letter of 1 April 2022, Mr Daci and Mr   Cron stated that they had spoken to the applicants, who had expressed the view that it was necessary for the hearing to proceed . 15.     On 4 April 2022 the President of the Court decided that the hearing of 27   April 2022 would proceed and asked the parties to provide a list of persons who would be attending. The Government did not respond to that request. 16.     On 6 April 2022 Mr Daci and Mr Cron informed the Registrar that they were no longer representing the applicants, who would be represented at the hearing by a different lawyer. 17 .     In a letter of 8 April 2022, on the instructions of the President, the Registrar asked Mr Daci and Mr Cron to supply the current contact details of the applicants and their new lawyer, and reiterated that the parties were required to provide a list of the persons who would be representing them at the hearing. 18.     As no reply was forthcoming, in a letter of 14   April 2022 the President of the Court, through the Registrar, gave the applicants a new deadline for submitting the list of persons who would be appearing at the hearing, adding that if no reply was received it would be presumed that the applicants would not be represented at the hearing. A copy of the letter, addressed to Mr   Daci and Mr Cron, was also sent to the applicants’ postal and email addresses as provided to the Court at the time the applications had been lodged. 19 .     On 15 April 2022 one of the applicants, Mr Chunosov, sent a letter to the Court stating that he had only been informed of the proceedings pending before the Grand Chamber via the Registrar’s letter of 14   April 2022. He expressed his wish for a hearing to be held, but asked for it to be postponed to allow his new lawyer, Ms O.   Gnezdilova, to prepare for it. 20.     On 21 April 2022, observing that neither the Government nor the applicants had provided the names of the persons who would be appearing at the hearing on 27 April 2022, the President of the Court decided to cancel the hearing. The President also refused Mr Chunosov’s request for the hearing to be postponed and decided that the Court would deliberate on the case on 27   April 2022. 21 .     In a letter dated 17 May 2022, the Registry of the Court took note of Mr   Chunosov’s wish to pursue the proceedings. Alongside this, in letters sent on the same day to the postal and email addresses supplied at the time of the applications, the other five applicants were asked to indicate whether they wished to pursue their applications. 22 .     In letters dated 30 May 2022, the applicants Ms Fedotova, Mr   Yevtushenko and Ms Shaykhraznova informed the Court that, like Mr   Chunosov, they wished to pursue their applications. They stated that they had authorised Ms Gnezdilova to represent them in the further proceedings.   The applicants Ms Shipitko and Ms Yakovleva did not respond to the above ‑ mentioned correspondence from the Court. 23.     Deliberations were held on 27 April 2022 and 12 October 2022. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined in accordance with Article   23 § 2 and Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE The applicants’ attempts to marry 24.     The six applicants formed three same-sex couples . On various dates they gave notice of marriage ( заявление о вступление в брак ) to their local departments of the Register Office ( органы записи актов гражданского состояния ). Ms   Fedotova and Ms   Shipitko submitted their notice to the Tverskoy Department of the Register Office in Moscow on 12 May 2009, while the other applicants submitted their notices to the Fourth Department of the Register Office in St   Petersburg on 28 June 2013. 25.     The Tverskoy Department of the Register Office in Moscow examined the notice submitted by the first couple and rejected it on 12   May 2009. The Fourth Department of the Register Office in St   Petersburg refused to examine the notices submitted by the other two couples and rejected both of them on 29 June 2013. The authorities relied on Article 1 of the Russian Family Code, which defines marriage as a “voluntary marital union between a man and a woman”. Since the couples formed by the applicants were not made up of “a man and a woman”, the authorities ruled that their notices of marriage could not be processed. 26.     The applicants challenged those decisions in the domestic courts. Court proceedings   Ms Fedotova and Ms Shipitko 27.     Ms Fedotova and Ms Shipitko challenged the rejection of their notice of marriage in the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. 28 .     They stated that the notice complied with the requirements of the Family Code and that the refusal to authorise their marriage violated their rights under the Constitution and Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention. 29.     On 6 October 2009 the Tverskoy District Court dismissed their claim, holding that it did not satisfy the conditions set out in the Family Code in that the requirement of a “voluntary union between a man and a woman” was not met since the couple did not include a man. The court noted that neither international law nor the Constitution imposed an obligation on the authorities to promote or support same-sex unions. Lastly, the court pointed out that the form for a notice of marriage contained two fields, “he” and “she”, and could therefore not be used by same-sex couples. 30.     The applicants appealed, arguing that the Family Code did not ban marriage between two persons of the same sex.   They pointed out that the list of impediments to marriage in Article 14 of the Family Code did not mention same-sex couples. 31.     On 21 January 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal, endorsing the District Court’s reasoning. In addition, it held that the absence of an explicit ban on same-sex marriage could not be construed as State-endorsed acceptance of that type of marriage. Mr Chunosov and Mr Yevtushenko 32.     Mr Chunosov and Mr Yevtushenko challenged the rejection of their notice of marriage in the Gryazi Town Court (Lipetsk Region). 33.     They argued that the Family Code did not restrict the right of same-sex couples to marry. They also argued that various international instruments, including the Convention, prohibited all forms of discrimination, including on the grounds of sexual orientation, and imposed an obligation on the Contracting States to protect private and family life.   The applicants relied on, inter alia , Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the Convention. 34 .     On 2 August 2013 the Gryazi Town Court held that the refusal by the Register Office to examine the notice of marriage on its merits had been unlawful because under Russian law, such an examination was required for any notice of marriage.   However, as far as the refusal to allow marriage between two persons of the same sex was concerned, the Town Court cited the Constitutional Court’s decision in the case of Mr   E. Murzin, in which that court had held that neither the Constitution nor legislation bestowed the right to marry on same-sex couples (see paragraph 44 below). The Town Court added that the concept of same-sex marriage ran counter to national and religious traditions, the understanding of a marriage “as a biological union between a man and a woman”, the State’s policy of protecting the family, motherhood and childhood, and the ban on promotion of homosexuality. It also stated that the Convention did not impose an obligation on Contracting States to allow same-sex marriages. 35.     The applicants appealed against that judgment, arguing that Russian law did not define marriage as a union between two persons of different sexes, and that the Family Code did not prohibit same-sex marriage. They submitted that they had no other means of conferring a legal status on their relationship, since marriage was the only form of union that was recognised by law. 36.     On 7 October 2013 the Lipetsk Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal. It stated that their arguments were no more than their personal opinion based on an incorrect interpretation of family law and national traditions. 37.     On 12 March 2014 the Lipetsk Regional Court refused the applicants leave to lodge a cassation appeal. Ms Shaykhraznova and Ms Yakovleva 38.     Ms Shaykhraznova and Ms Yakovleva challenged the rejection of their notice of marriage in the Gryazi Town Court (Lipetsk Region), raising essentially the same arguments as those submitted by Ms Fedotova and Ms   Shipitko (see paragraph 28 above). The applicants relied on, inter alia , Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the Convention. 39.     On 12 August 2013 the Town Court found against them. It held that, although it might have appeared that the applicants’ notice of marriage had been rejected without being examined on the merits, that had not been the case. It added that the Register Office had duly examined the notice and had acted entirely lawfully in rejecting it . The court reiterated the arguments set out in the judgment of 2 August 2013 (see paragraph 34 above). 40.     On 18 November 2013 and 11 March 2014 respectively the Lipetsk Regional Court dismissed an appeal and a subsequent cassation appeal by the applicants, holding that their arguments were based on an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of family law and ran counter to established national traditions. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Domestic law and practice The Russian Constitution 41.     The relevant provisions of the Russian Constitution read as follows: Article 15 “1.     The Constitution of the Russian Federation has supreme juridical force and direct effect and is applicable throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. Laws and other legal acts adopted in the Russian Federation shall not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation. ... 4.     The universally recognised standards of international law and the international treaties and agreements of the Russian Federation shall be a component part of its legal system. If an international treaty or agreement of the Russian Federation sets out rules which are different from those laid down by the law, the rules of the international agreement shall apply.” Article 17 “1.     The Russian Federation shall recognise and guarantee the rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens in conformity with the universally recognised principles and standards of international law, and under the present Constitution. ... 3.     The exercise of individual and civic rights and freedoms may not violate the rights and freedoms of other people.” Article 19 “1.     Everyone shall be equal before the law and courts of law. 2.     The State shall guarantee equality of rights and freedoms regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, social and official status, place of residence, religion, personal convictions, membership of public associations, or any other ground. Any restriction on the human rights of citizens on social, racial, national, linguistic or religious grounds shall be forbidden.” 42 .     On 14 March 2020 Article 72 § 1 of the Constitution, setting out guidelines for the division of powers between the federal and the regional authorities, was amended by Federal Law no. 1-FKZ , which inserted a sentence in Article 72 § 1 specifying that the Russian Federation and the regions of the Russian Federation exercised joint jurisdiction in respect of the protection of “marriage in the form of a union between a man and a woman”. The same law also amended Article 114 of the Constitution, which lists the fields of responsibility of the government of the Russian Federation. Paragraph   1 (c) of Article 114 is now worded as follows: “The Government of the Russian Federation: ... (c)     shall ensure the implementation in the Russian Federation of a uniform socially oriented State policy in the fields of culture, science, education, health, social security, support, strengthening and protection of the family, preservation of traditional family values, and protection of the environment; ...” Before the 2020 legislative reform, the provision in question read as follows: “The Government of the Russian Federation: ... (c)     shall ensure the implementation in the Russian Federation of a uniform State policy in the fields of culture, science, education, health, social security and ecology. ” The Russian Family Code 43.     The relevant provisions of the Russian Family Code read as follows: Article 1. Fundamental principles of family legislation “1.     The family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood shall be protected by the State ... 3.     The regulation of family relationships shall be based on the principles of a voluntary marital union between a man and a woman, on the equality of spouses’ rights in the family ... 4.     It is prohibited to place any form of restriction on a person’s rights to enter into marriage ... on the basis of social, racial, national, linguistic or religious affiliation ...” Article 12. Conditions for marriage “1.     The mutual and voluntary consent of a man and a woman who have attained marriageable age is required for the registration of a marriage. 2.     Marriage cannot be registered if any of the circumstances listed in Article 14 of the Code are present.” Article 14. Impediments to marriage “Marriage is not allowed between: –     persons, if at least one of them is already married; –     close relatives ..., siblings, and half-siblings; –     adoptive parents and their adopted children; –     persons, if at least one of them has been deprived of legal capacity by a court owing to a mental disorder.” Case-law of the Russian Constitutional Court 44 .     On 16 November 2006 the Russian Constitutional Court declared inadmissible a complaint lodged by Mr E. Murzin, who had challenged the compatibility of Article 12 of the Family Code with the Constitution, in so far as its interpretation by the domestic authorities prevented him from marrying his same-sex partner. The relevant part of the Constitutional Court’s decision (no. 496-O) reads as follows: “2.     Having examined the documents submitted by Mr E. Murzin, the Constitutional Court does not find any grounds to proceed with the examination of the merits of his application. 2.1.     [T]he Constitution of Russia and international legal rules are based on the principle that the main purpose of the family is to bear and bring up children. Taking that principle into consideration, as well as the national tradition of interpreting marriage as a biological union between a man and a woman, the Family Code provides that the regulation of family relationships is based on the principles of a voluntary marital union between a man and a woman, on prioritising the raising of children within the family and on caring for their well-being and development (Article   1). Accordingly, the federal legislature, acting within its powers, has stated that the mutual, voluntary consent of a man and a woman is one of the conditions for marriage. That [principle] cannot be considered a violation of the constitutional rights to which the applicant referred in his complaint. 2.2.     By challenging Article 12 § 1 of the Family Code, the applicant asks the State to recognise his relationship with another man by ensuring their registration in the form of a union protected by the State. However, no obligation on the State to create conditions for advocating, supporting or recognising same-sex unions flows from either the Constitution or the international obligations of the Russian Federation. The lack of such recognition and registration [of same-sex unions] on its own has no effect on the level of recognition and guarantees for the applicant’s individual and civil rights in the Russian Federation. The existence of a different approach in certain European States to the treatment of demographic and social issues does not prove that the applicant’s constitutional rights have been infringed. This conclusion can be drawn because in accordance with Article   23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to marriage is recognised specifically for men and women. Moreover, Article 12 of the Convention explicitly provides for the possibility of founding a family in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of that right. On the basis of all of the above ..., the Constitutional Court has decided ... not to proceed with the examination of Mr E. Murzin’s complaint on the merits as it falls short of the requirements for admissibility set out in the Constitutional Court Act introduced by federal constitutional law ...” 45 .     On 23 September 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed an application concerning the constitutionality of Article 6.21 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which introduced administrative liability for “promotion of non-traditional sexual relations among minors”. In judgment   24-P, the Constitutional Court stated, inter alia : “... In so far as one of the roles of the family is [to ensure] the birth and upbringing of children, an understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman underlies the legislative approach to resolving demographic and social issues in the area of family relations in the Russian Federation ...” International law and practice United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 46 .     On 29 May 2015 the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report entitled “Discrimination and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity” . It issued a number of recommendations to States aimed at combating violence and discrimination against LGBTI persons. These included: “Providing legal recognition to same-sex couples and their children, ensuring that benefits traditionally accorded married partners – including those related to benefits, pensions, and taxation and inheritance – are accorded on a non-discriminatory basis.” Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 47.     In its concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of the Russian Federation (E/C.12/RUS/CO/6), published on 16 October 2017, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stated the following : “ Non-discrimination 22.     The Committee is concerned about the continuous absence of comprehensive antidiscrimination legislation, despite the information provided by the delegation on existing anti-discrimination provisions, including in the State party’s Constitution and Criminal Code. The Committee is also concerned about the prevalence of societal stigma and discrimination, in particular on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or health status (art. 2). 23.     The Committee recommends that the State party take steps to adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, encompassing all grounds of discrimination, including sexual orientation and gender identity, taking into account the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (2009) on non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights. It also recommends that the State party: (a)     Recognize that individuals in same-sex relationships are entitled to equal enjoyment of Covenant rights, including by extending to them benefits reserved to married couples, and repeal or amend all legislation, including Federal Law No.   135, that could result in discrimination, prosecution and punishment of people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity; ...” Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 48 .     In Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, the Committee of Ministers recommended that member States: “1.     examine existing legislative and other measures, keep them under review, and collect and analyse relevant data, in order to monitor and redress any direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; 2.     ensure that legislative and other measures are adopted and effectively implemented to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, to ensure respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and to promote tolerance towards them; ... IV.     Right to respect for private and family life ... 23.     Where national legislation confers rights and obligations on unmarried couples, member states should ensure that it applies in a non-discriminatory way to both same ‑ sex and different-sex couples, including with respect to survivor’s pension benefits and tenancy rights. 24.     Where national legislation recognises registered same-sex partnerships, member states should seek to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a comparable situation. 25.     Where national legislation does not recognise nor confer rights or obligations on registered same-sex partnerships and unmarried couples, member states are invited to consider the possibility of providing, without discrimination of any kind, including against different sex couples, same-sex couples with legal or other means to address the practical problems related to the social reality in which they live.” The Russian Federation expressed its position on the Recommendation in an interpretative statement worded as follows: “1.     The Russian Federation considers that the provisions of the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity should be interpreted in the light of the international obligations of member states in the field of prohibition of discrimination, and should not create more favourable conditions for LGBT persons in comparison with other social groups. 2.     Any reference to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights should be understood as applying to the particular circumstances of the relevant cases. ... 6.     All provisions of Part IV ‘Right to respect for private and family life’ are interpreted by the Russian Federation on the basis of Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that the exercise of the right to marry and to found a family is governed by national law, and on the unequivocal position of the European Court of Human Rights that the right to marry only refers to a union between a man and a woman, which cannot be construed as inhibiting the rights of LGBT persons and consequently does not constitute discrimination and call for an increase of these rights. ... 8.     The Russian Federation does not share the opinion that a single judgment of the European Court of Human Rights or decisions only in relation to one country must serve as a standard for all member states. It is indisputable that judgments of the Court are binding only for the states involved, according to Article 46 of the Convention. The Court itself has repeatedly declared that it is not bound by its own prior decisions, and that its decisions are only applicable to the specific circumstances of the respective cases. Moreover, LGBT issues have been approached with much controversy by the Court, with recent judgments upholding diametrically opposing views on the subject. With this in mind, the Russian Federation considers itself to be bound by the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and not by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of other member states. ...” 49 .     On 16 September 2020 the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) published its latest “Report on the implementation of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 of the Committee of Ministers”, based on replies submitted by forty-two of the forty-seven member States to a questionnaire. It noted the following in particular: “... 126.     Following the trend in recent years in Europe and in line with the European Court of Human Rights case law, member States should ensure that a specific legal framework exists providing for appropriate recognition and protection of same sex unions. ... 137.     On the basis of the replies from member States to the questionnaire, the CDDH invites the Committee of Ministers to take note of this report, encourage member States to continue their efforts to implement the provisions of the Recommendation, and continue to provide them with Council of Europe support, notably in the framework of the Steering Committee on Antidiscrimination, Diversity and Inclusion (CDADI).” The Russian Federation made a statement reiterating that it dissociated itself from the content of the comments on Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 for the reasons expressed in the declaration appended to the CDDH’s initial report (document CDDH(2009)019, Appendix IV) and did not participate in their adoption. Parliamentary Assembly 50.     In its Recommendation 1474 (2000), adopted on 26 September 2000, concerning the “situation of lesbians and gays in Council of Europe member states”, the Parliamentary Assembly recommended that the Committee of Ministers call on the member States, among other things, to adopt legislation which makes provision for registered partnerships (paragraph 11.3 (i)). 51 .     On 10 October 2018 the Parliamentary Assembly adopted Resolution   2239 (2018) entitled “Private and family life: achieving equality regardless of sexual orientation”, in which it called upon the member States of the Council of Europe to: “... 4.3.     align their constitutional, legislative and regulatory provisions and policies with respect to same-sex partners with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in this field, and accordingly: 4.3.1.     ensure that same-sex partners have available to them a specific legal framework providing for the recognition and protection of their unions; 4.3.2.     grant equal rights to same-sex couples and heterosexual couples as regards succession to a tenancy; 4.3.3.     ensure that cohabiting same-sex partners, whatever the legal status of their partnership, qualify as dependants for the purposes of health insurance cover; 4.3.4.     when dealing with applications for residence permits for the purposes of family reunification, ensure that, if same-sex couples are not able to marry, there is some other way for a foreign same-sex partner to qualify for a residence permit; ...” 52.     On 25 January 2022 the Parliamentary Assembly adopted Resolution   2417 (2022), entitled “Combating rising hate against LGBTI people in Europe”, the relevant parts of which read: “14.     The Assembly emphasises that it is precisely when hostility is high or rising that effective criminal provisions and anti-discrimination legislation are most crucial. It calls on member States to strengthen their legislative framework wherever necessary to ensure that it protects the right of LGBTI people to live free from hatred and discrimination, and to apply it effectively in practice. In line with the above-mentioned standards, and without prejudice to the more specific or far-reaching obligations they may already entail, it calls on member States in particular to: ... 14.6.     initiate, if this has not already been done, and bring to fruition in all cases, the legislative and policy-making processes necessary to complete other elements of the legal framework that are crucial to LGBTI equality, notably as regards legal gender recognition, the bodily integrity of intersex people, the protection of rainbow families, access to trans-specific healthcare and the exercise of civil rights such as the freedoms of expression, association and assembly.” European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) 53 .     In its fifth report on the Russian Federation, adopted on 4   December 2018 and published on 5 March 2019, ECRI stated the following : “116.     Concerning family law matters, the current legislation in the Russian Federation does not recognise any form of same-sex partnerships. ECRI considers that the absence of recognition of same-sex partnerships can lead to various forms of discrimination in the field of social rights. In this regard, it draws the attention of the authorities to Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. 117.     ECRI recommends that the authorities provide a legal framework that affords same-sex couples, without discrimination of any kind, the possibility to have their relationship recognised and