CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6593/23 J.F. and I.W. against Hungary lodged on 15 January 2023 communicated on 1 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the impossibility to register in Hungary the same-sex marriage contracted by the applicants in Germany. On 24 March 2021 the applicants married in Munich, Germany. On 22   July 2021 they requested the Consulate General of Hungary in Munich to enter their marriage contracted in Germany as a registered partnership in the Hungarian Register. On 16 September 2021 the authorities refused the request in the absence of a statutory basis. The applicants’ request for a judicial review of the administrative decision was dismissed by the Budapest High Court on 2 June 2022. The applicants lodged a petition for review with the Kúria, which was dismissed on 14 September 2022. The applicants lodged a constitutional complaint against the Kúria ’s decision. In its judgment of 3 June 2025, the Constitutional Court held that there was no statutory basis for the recognition of same-sex marriages contracted abroad and that this legislative omission was unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court called upon Parliament to meet its legislative duty by 31 October 2025. The legislative change requested by the Constitutional Court has not yet been carried out. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that their marriage contracted abroad was not recognised by the Hungarian authorities and that the Hungarian legal system does not allow for recognising their relationship otherwise. The applicants further complain that the failure to register their same-sex marriage contracted abroad amounts to discrimination on grounds of their sexual orientation in breach of Article   14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for their private and family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, in particular in so far as their marriage contracted abroad was not registered in Hungary and they had no other possibility to have their relationship recognised by Hungarian law (see Orlandi and Others v.   Italy , nos.   26431/12 and 3 others, §§   191-211, 14 December 2017, and Oliari   and Others v.   Italy , nos.   18766/11 and 36030/11, §§   103 and 159 ‑ 87, 21   July 2015)? 2.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on grounds of their sexual orientation, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, in respect of their inability to register their marriage contracted abroad (see Orlandi and Others , cited above, §§   139-46, and Oliari and Others , cited above, §§   101-03)?