Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

At the Crossroads Between Privacy and Community: The Legal Status of Same-Sex Couples in German, Austrian and Swiss Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Same-Sex Couples before National, Supranational and International Jurisdictions

Abstract

The status of same-sex couples in German, Austrian and Swiss law reveals many similarities, from both the substantial (with regard to parental and material rights, particularly in the field of social benefits) and the institutional perspective (with regard to the shared powers between the central authority and the member States and to the dialectics between the Legislator and the judiciary). In the three jurisdictions examined, the traditional resistance toward same-sex marriage has not prevented the national Legislators from adopting, over the past decade, a regulation introducing same-sex registered partnerships. The main common features of these provisions are admittance to registered partnerships only for same-sex couples, a regulatory framework imitating the basic structure of marriage, and a progressive inclusion of registered partners within the social security schemes. This common model, which could per se be referred to a ‘separate but equal’ rhetoric, is undergoing some significant transformations in the field of parental rights, whose increasing enjoyment by registered partners (above all in Germany) is broadening the legal and symbolic relevance of same-sex relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bamforth (2011), p. 551.

  2. 2.

    A general overview about the problems raised by the constitutional family law in a comparative perspective is that of Marella and Marini 2012, p. 747. Specifically on the comparative legal treatment of same-sex relationships see Sáez (2011), p. 1.

  3. 3.

    For the historical evolution see Ipsen (2009), p. 432.

  4. 4.

    Gröschner (2004), Artikel 6, para. 39. The leading cases of the CFT in this field are BVerfGE 10, 59 (66), 49, 286 (300) and 62, 323 (330).

  5. 5.

    Papier (2002), p. 2129.

  6. 6.

    So BVerfGE 31, 58 (83).

  7. 7.

    BVerfGE 6, 55 (71). For further references on this aspect see Sanders (2012), p. 917.

  8. 8.

    BVerfGE 76, 1 (49).

  9. 9.

    BVerfGE 31, 58 (69). For an insightful overview of the right to marry as a guarantee of institution see Pieroth and Kingreen (2002), p. 224.

  10. 10.

    BVerfGE 87, 1 (35). For further insights see von Coelln (2011), Artikel 6, paras 34–51.

  11. 11.

    As the CFT lastly did in its admissibility judgment of 4. October 1993 in NJW 1993, 3058, on the basis of its precedents: BVerfGE 10, 59 (66); 49, 286 (300); 53, 224 (245); 87, 234 (264).

  12. 12.

    Sanders (2012), p. 931 and, even more expressly, Möller (2005), p. 65.

  13. 13.

    Sanders (2012), p. 931.

  14. 14.

    Gröschner (2004), Artikel 6, para. 44.

  15. 15.

    Pieroth and Kingreen (2002), p. 220.

  16. 16.

    Among others see Burgi (2000), p. 487 and Robbers (2010), Artikel 6, para 45.

  17. 17.

    See the authors cited supra, note 12, and also Ott (1998), p. 117.

  18. 18.

    Pieroth and Kingreen (2002), p. 222.

  19. 19.

    BVerfGE 49, 286.

  20. 20.

    BVerfGE 121, 175.

  21. 21.

    BVerfGE 121, 175 (193).

  22. 22.

    BVerfGE 9, 20 (35).

  23. 23.

    BVerfGE 82, 6 (15) and 87, 234 (267).

  24. 24.

    von Coelln (2011), Artikel 6, para. 48.

  25. 25.

    Schüffner (2007), p. 374.

  26. 26.

    BGBl. I 2001, p. 266.

  27. 27.

    Gesetz zur Überarbeitung des Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetzes of 15.12.2004 (BGBl. I p. 3396).

  28. 28.

    See paragraph 11.2.3.1.

  29. 29.

    Grünberger (2010), p. 208.

  30. 30.

    See paragraph 11.2.3.2.

  31. 31.

    Scherpe (2011), p. 156.

  32. 32.

    This assertion is all the more true in that a performed partnership is not a limit per se on a person involved in it marrying a person of the opposite sex, even though in such cases the public officer celebrating the marriage is entitled to evaluate the actual will of the spouses to engage in a conjugal relationship: BVerfGE 105, 313 (342).

  33. 33.

    BVerfGE 105, 313 (345–6).

  34. 34.

    Among others Burgi (2000), p. 487.

  35. 35.

    BVerfGE 105, 313 (351).

  36. 36.

    For a similar reading of Art. 6 BL see Pieroth and Kingreen (2002), p. 241 and Gröschner (2004), Artikel 6, para. 49.

  37. 37.

    Robbers (2001), p. 782.

  38. 38.

    An example, among others, of this virtuous approach lies for example in the recognition that registered partners, unlike spouses, are not legally compelled to engage in a sexual relationship: BVerfGE 105, 313 (317). This fact should not necessarily be regarded as a deficiency with respect to marriage, but rather as a difference that qualifies same-sex relationships and makes them able to develop a proper constellation of values and symbols.

  39. 39.

    For an overview see Hußmann (2010), p. 194.

  40. 40.

    Tadao Maruko v. Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, C-267/06, judgment of 1st April 2008 [2008] ECR I-1757. The principles enshrined in Maruko are at the core of the following decision Jürgen Römer v. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, C-147/08, judgment of 10th May 2011, ECR I-3591.

  41. 41.

    See the Chapter by Orzan in this volume.

  42. 42.

    Michael (2010), p. 3539.

  43. 43.

    BVerfGE 124, 199 (220). The same argument has recently been used by the CFT in order to reverse its previous case-law concerning family allowance, whose denial to registered partners is unconstitutional: see Second Senate Decision of 19 June 2012 (2BvR 1397/09).

  44. 44.

    BVerfGE 124, 199 (226). In the same vein, the CFT has declared unconstitutional on 7 May 2013 the impossibility for registered couples to benefit of the regime of separate taxation (income splitting) which was available only to married couples (so called Ehegattensplitting, 2 BVR 909/06).

  45. 45.

    Classen (2010), p. 411.

  46. 46.

    Critical insights toward an enlargement of partners’ adoption rights in Gärditz (2011), p. 932.

  47. 47.

    Decision of 10.8.2009, 1BvL 15/09.

  48. 48.

    Decision of 19.2.2013, 1 BvL 1/11, 1 BvR 3247/09.

  49. 49.

    The Austrian Constitutional Court has held in two occasions, with a sharply brief motivation, that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional: in Case B 777/03, 12th December 2003 and in Case B 1512/03, 14th October 2004.

  50. 50.

    On the ECtHR jurisprudence see the Chapters by Crisafulli and Pustorino in this volume.

  51. 51.

    N. 40016/98, judgment of 24th July 2003.

  52. 52.

    N. 30141/04, judgment of 24th June 2010.

  53. 53.

    Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt) vol. I, no. 135/2009 (further referred to as EPG).

  54. 54.

    Further elements in Aichberger-Beig (2010), p. 68.

  55. 55.

    Case B 1405/10-11.

  56. 56.

    Case B 125/11-11, 12.12.2012.

  57. 57.

    See §§ 216 and 259 of the General Law on Social Security (Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz, in BGBl. I Nr. 116/2009).

  58. 58.

    Grand Chamber, X and others v. Austria, n. 19010/07, judgment of 19th February 2013. For further insights see the Chapters by Crisafulli and Pustorino in this volume.

  59. 59.

    Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz (BGBL. I 1992, 1299).

  60. 60.

    Ziegler and Bueno (2012), p. 41.

  61. 61.

    ATF 119 II 264 and ATF 126 II 425.

  62. 62.

    Peters (2011), p. 310.

  63. 63.

    Bundesgesetz über die eingetragene Partnerschaft gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare—Loi fédérale sur le partenariat enregistré entre personnes du même sexe (RS 211.231, further referred to as PartG).

  64. 64.

    Peters (2011), p. 313.

  65. 65.

    Examples in Ziegler and Bueno (2012), p. 44.

  66. 66.

    See paragraph 11.4.3.

  67. 67.

    Further insights in Ziegler and Bueno (2012), p. 43.

  68. 68.

    Art. 19a and 20a, para. 1, a) of Bundesgesetz über die berufliche Alters-, Hinterlassenen- und Invalidenvorsorge—Loi fédérale sur la prévoyance professionnelle vieillesse, survivants et invalidité (RS 831.40). On the interpretation of the latter provision see the Bundesgericht decision of 3.2.2012, 9C_676/2011.

  69. 69.

    Bundesgesetz über die medizinische unterstützte Fortpflanzung—Loi fédérale sur la procréation médicalement assistée (of 18.12.1998—RS 810.11).

  70. 70.

    An interlocutory decision is that of Bundesgericht of 5.5.2011 (ATF 137 III 241), in which the Supreme Tribunal refused to deal with the legitimacy of Art. 28 in a case concerning step-child adoption, since the registered couple did not have the requisites demanded by the Civil Code for married couples.

  71. 71.

    Grand Chamber, n. 43546/02, judgment of 22nd January 2008.

  72. 72.

    N. 25951/07, judgment of 15th March 2012. On these cases see the Chapter by Crisafulli in this volume.

  73. 73.

    The difference between communitarian and privacy models of family law has been recently re-elaborated by Marella and Marini (2012), pp. 485 and 489.

References

  • Aichberger-Beig D (2010) Registered partnership for same-sex couples. In: Verschraegen B (ed) Austrian law – an international perspective. Jan Sramek, Wien, pp 63–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamforth N (2011) Legal protection of same-sex partnerships and comparative constitutional law. In: Ginsburg T, Dixon R (eds) Comparative constitutional law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, pp 551–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgi M (2000) Schützt das Grundgesetz die Ehe vor der Konkurrenz anderer Lebensgemeinschaften? Der Staat 39:487–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Classen CD (2010) Der besondere Schutz der Ehe – aufgehoben durch das BVerfG? JuristenZeitung 65:411–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gärditz KF (2011) Gemeinsames Adoptionsrecht Eingetragener Lebenspartner als Verfassungsgebot? JuristenZeitung 66:930–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gröschner R (2004) Artikel 6. In: Dreier H (Hrsg) Grundgesetz Kommentar, 2. Aufl., Band I. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 751–825

    Google Scholar 

  • Grünberger M (2010) Die Gleichbehandlung von Ehe und eingetragener Lebenspartnerschaft im Zusammenspiel von Unionsrecht und nationalem Verfassungsrecht. Familie Partnerschaft Recht 5:203–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Hußmann W (2010) Die Behandlung von Lebenspartnern im Sozialrecht. Familie Partnerschaft Recht 5:194–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen J (2009) Ehe und Familie. In: Isensee J, Kirchhof P (eds) Handbuch des Staatsrechts, 3. Aufl., Band VII. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 431–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Marella MR, Marini G (2012) Famille. In: Troper M (dir) Traité international de droit constitutionnel, Tome 3. Dalloz, Paris, pp 472–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael L (2010) Lebenspartnerschaften unter dem besonderen Schutze einer (über-) staatlichen Ordnung. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 63:3537–3542

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller K (2005) Der Ehebegriff des Grundgesetzes und die gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe. Die öffentliche Verwaltung 58:64–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott S (1998) Die Begriffe “Ehe und Familie” in Art. 6 I GG. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 51:117–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Papier HJ (2002) Ehe und Familie in der neueren Rechtsprechung des BVerfG. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 55:2129–2133

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2011) National report Switzerland. Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law 19:309–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieroth B, Kingreen T (2002) Funktionen des Ehegrundrechts am Beispiel des Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetzes. KritV 85:219–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbers G (2001) Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaften. Verfassungsrechtliche Überlegungen. JuristenZeitung 56:779–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbers G (2010) Artikel 6. In: von Mangoldt H, Klein F (eds) Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, 6th edn. Vahlen, München, pp 683–755

    Google Scholar 

  • Sáez M (2011) Same-sex marriage, same-sex cohabitation and same-sex families around the world: why “same” is so different. Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law 19:1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders A (2012) Marriage, same-sex partnership, and the German constitution. German Law J 13:911–940

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherpe J (2011) National report Germany. Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law 19:151–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Schüffner M (2007) Eheschutz und Lebenspartnerschaft. Eine verfassungsrechtliche Untersuchung des Lebenspartnerschaftsrechts im Lichte des Art. 6 GG. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • von Coelln C (2011) Artikel 6. In: Starck C (Hrsg) Grundgesetz Kommentar, 6. Aufl., Band I. Beck, München, pp 352–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler AR, Bueno N (2012) La protection constitutionnelles des gays et lesbiennes. In: Ziegler AR et al. (eds) Droit des gays et lesbiennes en Suisse/Rechte der Lesben und Schwulen in der Schweiz (Partenariat enregistré, communauté de vie de fait, questions juridiques concernant l’orientation sexuelle et l’identité de genre des personnes LGBT), 2e édn. Staempfli, Berne

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Giorgio Repetto

Authors
  1. Giorgio Repetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giorgio Repetto .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Luiss University, Rome, Italy

    Daniele Gallo

  2. University Institute SSML Carlo Bo, Rome, Italy

    Luca Paladini

  3. Political and International Sciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy

    Pietro Pustorino

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Repetto, G. (2014). At the Crossroads Between Privacy and Community: The Legal Status of Same-Sex Couples in German, Austrian and Swiss Law. In: Gallo, D., Paladini, L., Pustorino, P. (eds) Same-Sex Couples before National, Supranational and International Jurisdictions. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35434-2_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation