## Facts

- Greece enacted Law No. 3719/2008 creating a civil-union status with legal effects distinct from marriage, including mutual obligations, inheritance implications, and family-law consequences.
- The law limited eligibility to different-sex adult couples and categorically excluded same-sex couples.
- Several same-sex couples sought access to the civil-union regime to obtain legal recognition and a statutory framework for their relationships but were barred by the law.
- Applicants filed complaints under the European Convention on Human Rights alleging discrimination in access to a state-created relationship-recognition scheme.
- Greece argued the applicants lacked victim status because they could manage many matters through private arrangements (e.g., contracts, wills) and because any harm was speculative.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding same-sex couples from eligibility for civil unions fell within the ambit of Article 8 (private and family life), triggering Article 14’s non-discrimination protection.
2. Whether restricting civil unions to different-sex couples constituted unjustified discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.
3. Whether an NGO advocating for LGBTQ persons could claim “victim” status to challenge the civil-union exclusion.

## Decision

- The court held that the civil-union scheme concerned applicants’ private and family life and therefore fell within the ambit of Article 8.
- The court found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 because Greece excluded same-sex couples from civil unions without sufficiently weighty justification.
- The court accepted that protecting children and family life can be legitimate aims but concluded the exclusion was not proportionate to those aims.
- The court did not separately rule on a standalone Article 8 violation after finding a violation under Article 14 plus Article 8.
- The court held the NGO applicant lacked victim status; the complaint was inadmissible as to the organization.
- The court awarded monetary just satisfaction to the individual applicants.

## Legal Principles

- Differential treatment based on sexual orientation requires particularly convincing and weighty reasons to be compatible with Article 14.
- When a state creates an official legal framework for recognizing and protecting couples’ relationships, access to that framework falls within the ambit of Article 8, and exclusions must satisfy Article 14.
- Same-sex couples are a relevant comparator to different-sex couples for access to a civil-union regime designed to structure mutual rights and obligations.
- Legitimate aims such as child and family protection do not, without more, justify excluding same-sex couples from a relationship-recognition scheme, especially where same-sex couples may also form family units and raise children.
- A European trend toward legal recognition of same-sex relationships may narrow the state’s margin of appreciation and heighten scrutiny of exclusionary measures.
- “Victim” status may exist where legislation directly bars access to a legal status sought by applicants, even without an unsuccessful application attempt; organizations generally cannot claim victim status for such individualized exclusions.

## Conclusion

The court held that Greece’s creation of civil unions exclusively for different-sex couples discriminated against same-sex couples in the enjoyment of private and family life, violating Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, while rejecting the NGO’s standing and declining a separate Article 8 ruling.


Vallianatos & Others v. Greece, Apps. Nos. 29381/09 & 32684/09 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2013)