Article 12

Article 12 | Right to marry / found family

Read posts on this Article

Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

There are therefore two constituent rights, marriage and founding a family, which have been explored and developed in the case law. Because Article 8 has proved such a reliable source for claims relating to family, relationships and home the jurisprudence on Article 12 itself is fairly thin. However it has been invoked in challenges to the government’s efforts to prevent sham marriage as a way of evading immigration controls. The Strasbourg Court has recognised that countries are entitled to restrict the rights of third party-nationals to marry in such circumstances: O’Donoghue v United Kingdom, 2010.

According to Karen Reid, the Strasbourg court takes a conservative view of Article 12: “the right to marry guaranteed by Art.12 refers to the traditional marriage between persons of opposite biological sex, which interpretation is supported by reference to to the founding of a family” (A Practitioner’s Guide to The European Convention of Human Rights, Sweet & Maxwell 2015, 5th edition). In the relatively recent case of Schalk and Kopf v Austria, Application no. 30141/04, 25 June 2010, the Court observed that the choice of wording “men and women” instead of “everyone” meant that the Article must be regarded as deliberate and seen in the context of the 1950s as marriage in the traditional sense.

But in the UK the position is different. Until recently English law has permitted civil partnerships for same-sex couples but prevented them from marrying.  But the campaign to allow civil partnerships to be registered in religious institutions and the legal challenge to UK law has led to the recognition of same-sex marriage, enshrined in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.

The “founding a family” limb of Article 12 does not create a right to access to reproductive technologies or adoption. This involves issues of resource allocation and costs which are usually outside the purview of the Convention, although there may be an argument based on the prohibition on discrimination under Article 14 if such treatment is arbitrarily allocated.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: