PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 30141/04) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Austrian nationals, Mr Horst Michael Schalk and Mr Johan Franz Kopf (“the applicants”), on 5 August 2004.

The applicants were represented by Mr K. Mayer, a lawyer practising in Vienna. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Tichy, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs.

The applicants alleged in particular that they were discriminated against as, being a same-sex couple, they were denied the possibility to marry or to have their relationship otherwise recognised by law.

On 8 January 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention).

The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The Government also filed further observations. In addition, third-party comments were received from the United Kingdom Government, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court). A joint third-party comment was received from four non-governmental organisations which had also been given leave by the President to intervene, namely the International Federation for Human Rights (Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’Homme – FIDH), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the AIRE Centre and the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe). The four non-governmental organisations were also given leave by the President to intervene at the hearing.

A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 25 February 2010 (Rule 59 § 3). There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Ms B. Ohms, Federal Chancellery, Deputy Agent, Ms G. Paschinger, Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs, Mr M. Stormann, Federal Ministry of Justice, Advisers; (b) for the applicants Mr K. Mayer, Counsel, Mr H. Schalk, Applicant; (c) for the non-governmental organisations, third-party interveners Mr R. Wintemute, King’s College London, Counsel, Ms A. Jernow, International Commission of Jurists, Adviser. The Court heard addresses by Ms Ohms, Mr Mayer and Mr Wintemute.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicants were born in 1962 and 1960 respectively. They are a same-sex couple living in Vienna.

On 10 September 2002 the applicants requested the Office for Matters of Personal Status (Standesamt) to proceed with the formalities to enable them to contract marriage.

By a decision of 20 December 2002, the Vienna Municipal Office (Magistrat) refused the applicants’ request. Referring to Article 44 of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), it held that marriage could only be contracted between two persons of opposite sex. According to constant case-law, a marriage concluded by two persons of the same sex was null and void. Since the applicants were two men, they lacked the capacity to contract marriage.

The applicants lodged an appeal with the Vienna Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann), but to no avail. In his decision of 11 April 2003, the Governor confirmed the Municipal Office’s legal view. In addition, he referred to the Administrative Court’s case-law according to which it constituted an impediment to marriage if the two persons concerned were of the same sex. Moreover, Article 12 of the Convention reserved the right to contract marriage to persons of different sex.

In a constitutional complaint, the applicants alleged that the legal impossibility for them to marry constituted a violation of their right to respect for private and family life and of the principle of non-discrimination. They argued that the notion of marriage had evolved since the entry into force of the Civil Code in 1812. In particular, the procreation and education of children no longer formed an integral part of marriage. According to present-day perceptions, marriage was rather a permanent union encompassing all aspects of life. There was no objective justification for excluding same-sex couples from concluding marriage, all the more so since the European Court of Human Rights had acknowledged that differences based on sexual orientation required particularly weighty reasons by way of justification. Other European countries either allowed homosexual marriage or had otherwise amended their legislation in order to give equal status to same-sex partnerships.

Lastly, the applicants alleged a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They argued that in the event that one partner in a homosexual couple died, the other was discriminated against since he would be in a much less favourable position under tax law than the surviving partner in a married couple.

On 12 December 2003 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) dismissed the applicants’ complaint. The relevant parts of its judgment read as follows: “The administrative proceedings that resulted in the impugned decision were exclusively concerned with the issue of the legitimacy of the marriage. Accordingly, the complainants’ sole applicable grievance is that Article 44 of the Civil Code only recognises and provides for marriage between ‘persons of opposite sex’. The allegation of a breach of the right of property is simply a further means of seeking to show that this state of affairs is unjustified. With regard to marriage, Article 12 of the [Convention], which ranks as constitutional law, 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.’ Neither the principle of equality set forth in the Austrian Federal Constitution nor the European Convention on Human Rights (as evidenced by [the terms] ‘men and women’ in Article 12) require that the concept of marriage, as being geared to the fundamental possibility of parenthood, should be extended to relationships of a different kind. The essence of marriage is, moreover, not affected in any way by the fact that divorce (or separation) is possible and that it is a matter for the spouses whether in fact they are able or wish to have children. The European Court of Human Rights found in its Cossey [v. the United Kingdom] judgment of 27 September 1990 (no. 10843/84, [Series A no. 184], concerning the particular position of transsexual persons) that the restriction of marriage to this ‘traditional’ concept was objectively justified, observing: ‘... that attachment to the traditional concept of marriage provides sufficient reason for the continued adoption of biological criteria for determining a person’s sex for the purposes of marriage ...’ [The subsequent change in the case-law concerning the particular issue of transsexuals (Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, ECHR 2002-VI) does not permit the conclusion that there should be any change in the assessment of the general question at issue here.] The fact that same-sex relationships fall within the concept of private life and as such enjoy the protection of Article 8 of the [Convention] – which also prohibits discrimination on non-objective grounds (Article 14 of the [Convention]) – does not give rise to an obligation to change the law of marriage. It is unnecessary in the instant case to examine whether, and in which areas, the law unjustifiably discriminates against same-sex relationships by providing for special rules for married couples. Nor is it the task of this court to advise the legislature on constitutional issues or even matters of legal policy. Instead, the complaint must be dismissed as ill-founded.”

The Constitutional Court’s judgment was served on the applicants’ counsel on 25 February 2004.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND COMPARATIVE LAW

A. Austrian law

1. The Civil Code

Article 44 of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) provides: “The marriage contract shall form the basis for family relationships. Under the marriage contract two persons of opposite sex declare their lawful intention to live together in indissoluble matrimony, to beget and raise children and to support each other.” This provision has been unchanged since its entry into force on 1 January 1812.

2. The Registered Partnership Act

The purpose of the Registered Partnership Act (Eingetragene Partnerschaft-Gesetz) was to provide same-sex couples with a formal mechanism for recognising and giving legal effect to their relationships. In introducing the said Act, the legislator had particular regard to developments in other European States (see the explanatory report on the draft law – Erläuterungen zur Regierungsvorlage, 485 der Beilagen XXIV GP).

The Registered Partnership Act, Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt) vol. I, no. 135/2009, came into force on 1 January 2010. Section 2 of the Act provides as follows: “A registered partnership may be formed only by two persons of the same sex (registered partners). They thereby commit themselves to a lasting relationship with mutual rights and obligations.”

The rules on the establishment of a registered partnership, its effects and its dissolution resemble the rules governing marriage.

Registered partnership involves cohabitation on a permanent basis and may be entered into between two persons of the same sex having legal capacity and having reached the age of majority (section 3). A registered partnership must not be established between close relatives or with a person who is already married or has established a still valid registered partnership with another person (section 5).

Like married couples, registered partners are expected to live together like spouses in every respect, to share a common home, to treat each other with respect and to provide mutual assistance (section 8(2) and (3)). As in the case of spouses, the partner who is in charge of the common household and has no income has legal authority to represent the other partner in everyday legal transactions (section 10). Registered partners have the same obligations regarding maintenance as spouses (section 12).

The grounds for dissolution of a registered partnership are the same as for dissolution of marriage or divorce. Dissolution of a registered partnership occurs in the event of the death of one partner (section 13). It may also be pronounced by a judicial decision on various other grounds, such as lack of intent to establish a registered partnership (section 14), fault of one or both partners, or breakdown of the partnership due to irreconcilable differences (section 15).

The Registered Partnership Act also contains a comprehensive range of amendments to existing legislation in order to provide registered partners with the same status as spouses in various other fields of law, such as inheritance law, labour, social and social insurance law, tax law, the law on administrative procedure, the law on data protection and public service, passport and registration issues, as well as legislation regarding foreigners.

However, some differences between marriage and registered partnership remain, apart from the fact that only two persons of the same sex can enter into a registered partnership. The following differences were the subject of some public debate prior to the adoption of the Registered Partnership Act: firstly, while marriage is contracted before the Office for Matters of Personal Status, registered partnerships are concluded before the district administrative authority; and secondly, the rules on the choice of name differ from those for married couples: for instance, the law uses the term “last name” where a registered couple chooses a common name, but the term “family name” is used in reference to a married couple’s common name. The most important differences, however, concern parental rights: unlike married couples, registered partners are not allowed to adopt a child; nor is the adoption of stepchildren permitted, that is to say, the adoption of one partner’s child by the other partner (section 8(4)). Artificial insemination is also excluded (section 2(1) of the Artificial Procreation Act – Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz).

B. Comparative law

1. European Union law

Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which was signed on 7 December 2000 and came into force on 1 December 2009, reads as follows: “The right to marry and to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.”

The relevant parts of the Commentary of the Charter read as follows: “Modern trends and developments in the domestic laws in a number of countries toward greater openness and acceptance of same-sex couples notwithstanding, a few States still have public policies and/or regulations that explicitly forbid the notion that same-sex couples have the right to marry. At present there is very limited legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the sense that marriage is not available to same-sex couples. The domestic laws of the majority of States presuppose, in other words, that the intending spouses are of different sexes. Nevertheless, in a few countries, e.g. in the Netherlands and in Belgium, marriage between people of the same sex is legally recognised. Others, like the Nordic countries, have endorsed a registered partnership legislation, which implies, among other things, that most provisions concerning marriage, i.e. its legal consequences such as property distribution, rights of inheritance, etc., are also applicable to these unions. At the same time it is important to point out that the name ‘registered partnership’ has intentionally been chosen not to confuse it with marriage and it has been established as an alternative method of recognising personal relationships. This new institution is, consequently, as a rule only accessible to couples who cannot marry, and the same-sex partnership does not have the same status and the same benefits as marriage. In order to take into account the diversity of domestic regulations on marriage, Article 9 of the Charter refers to domestic legislation. As it appears from its formulation, the provision is broader in its scope than the corresponding Articles in other international instruments. Since there is no explicit reference to ‘men and women’ as the case is in other human rights instruments, it may be argued that there is no obstacle to recognise same-sex relationships in the context of marriage. There is, however, no explicit requirement that domestic laws should facilitate such marriages. International courts and committees have so far hesitated to extend the application of the right to marry to same-sex couples.”

A number of directives are also of interest in the present case. Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification determines the conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification by third-country nationals residing lawfully in the territory of the member States. Article 4, entitled “Family members”, provides: “3. The member States may, by law or regulation, authorise the entry and residence, pursuant to this directive und subject to compliance with the conditions laid down in Chapter IV, of the unmarried partner, being a third-country national, with whom the sponsor is in a duly attested stable long-term relationship, or of a third-country national who is bound to the sponsor by a registered partnership in accordance with Article 5 § 2, ...” Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 concerns the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member States. Article 2 thereof contains the following definition: “For the purposes of this Directive: ...

’Family member’ means: (a) the spouse; (b) the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a member State, if the legislation of the host member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host member State; (c) the direct descendants who are under the age of 21 or are dependants and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b); (d) the dependant direct relative in the ascending line and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b); ...”

2. The state of relevant legislation in Council of Europe member States

Currently, six out of forty-seven member States grant same-sex couples equal access to marriage, namely Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

In addition, the following thirteen member States do not grant same-sex couples access to marriage, but have passed some kind of legislation permitting same-sex couples to register their relationships: Andorra, Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. In sum, there are nineteen member States in which same-sex couples either have the possibility to marry or to enter into a registered partnership (see also the overview provided in Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 26, ECHR 2008).

In two States, namely Ireland and Liechtenstein, reforms intending to give same-sex couples access to some form of registered partnership are pending or planned. In addition, Croatia has a Law on same-sex civil unions which recognises cohabiting same-sex couples for limited purposes, but does not offer them the possibility of registration.

According to the information available to the Court, the vast majority of the States concerned have introduced the relevant legislation in the last decade.

The legal consequences of registered partnerships vary from being almost equivalent to marriage to giving relatively limited rights. Among the legal consequences of registered partnerships, three main categories can be distinguished: material consequences, parental consequences and other consequences.

Material consequences cover the impact of registered partnerships on different kinds of tax, health insurance, social security payments and pensions. In most of the States concerned, registered partners obtain a status similar to marriage. This also applies to other material consequences, such as regulations on joint property and debt, the application of rules of alimony upon break-up, entitlement to compensation following the wrongful death of the partner and inheritance rights.

With regard to parental consequences, however, the possibilities for registered partners to undergo medically assisted insemination or to foster or adopt children vary greatly from one country to another.

Other consequences include the use of the partner’s surname, the impact on a foreign partner’s ability to obtain a residence permit and citizenship, refusal to testify, next of kin status for medical purposes, the right to succeed to the deceased partner’s tenancy, and lawful organ donation.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e1
001-99605_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
30141/04
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-99605_a11_e2
001-99605_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e3
001-99605_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e4
001-99605_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Horst Michael Schalk
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e5
001-99605_a11_em5
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Johan Franz Kopf
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e6
001-99605_a11_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
5 August 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e7
001-99605_a11_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Mr K. Mayer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e8
001-99605_a11_em8
LOC
NO_MASK
Vienna
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e2
001-99605_a11_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
001-99605_a11_em2
Austrian Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e2
001-99605_a11_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
001-99605_a11_em2
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e9
001-99605_a11_em11
PERSON
QUASI
H. Tichy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e10
001-99605_a11_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
International Law Department
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e11
001-99605_a11_em13
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs
SEX
insert
001-99605_a11_e12
001-99605_a11_em14
DEM
QUASI
same-sex couple
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e13
001-99605_a11_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
8 January 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e2
001-99605_a11_em16
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e2
001-99605_a11_em17
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e2
001-99605_a11_em18
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e14
001-99605_a11_em19
ORG
QUASI
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e15
001-99605_a11_em20
ORG
QUASI
International Federation for Human Rights
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e15
001-99605_a11_em21
ORG
QUASI
001-99605_a11_em20
Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’Homme
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e15
001-99605_a11_em22
ORG
QUASI
001-99605_a11_em20
FIDH
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e16
001-99605_a11_em23
ORG
QUASI
International Commission of Jurists
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e16
001-99605_a11_em24
ORG
QUASI
001-99605_a11_em23
ICJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e17
001-99605_a11_em25
ORG
QUASI
AIRE Centre
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e18
001-99605_a11_em26
ORG
QUASI
European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e18
001-99605_a11_em27
ORG
QUASI
001-99605_a11_em26
ILGA-Europe
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e19
001-99605_a11_em28
LOC
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e20
001-99605_a11_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
25 February 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e2
001-99605_a11_em30
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e21
001-99605_a11_em31
PERSON
QUASI
Ms B. Ohms
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e22
001-99605_a11_em32
PERSON
QUASI
Ms G. Paschinger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e11
001-99605_a11_em33
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e23
001-99605_a11_em34
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Stormann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e24
001-99605_a11_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e7
001-99605_a11_em36
PERSON
QUASI
Mr K. Mayer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e25
001-99605_a11_em37
PERSON
QUASI
Mr H. Schalk
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e26
001-99605_a11_em38
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Wintemute
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e27
001-99605_a11_em39
ORG
QUASI
King’s College London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e28
001-99605_a11_em40
PERSON
QUASI
Ms A. Jernow
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e16
001-99605_a11_em41
ORG
QUASI
International Commission of Jurists
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e21
001-99605_a11_em42
PERSON
QUASI
001-99605_a11_em31
Ms Ohms
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e7
001-99605_a11_em43
PERSON
QUASI
001-99605_a11_em7
Mr Mayer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e26
001-99605_a11_em44
PERSON
QUASI
001-99605_a11_em38
Mr Wintemute
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e29
001-99605_a11_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
1962
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e30
001-99605_a11_em46
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1960
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e12
001-99605_a11_em47
DEM
QUASI
same-sex couple
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e8
001-99605_a11_em48
LOC
NO_MASK
Vienna
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e31
001-99605_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
10 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e32
001-99605_a11_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Office for Matters of Personal Status
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e33
001-99605_a11_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
Standesamt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e34
001-99605_a11_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
20 December 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e35
001-99605_a11_em53
ORG
NO_MASK
Vienna Municipal Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e36
001-99605_a11_em54
ORG
NO_MASK
Magistrat
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e37
001-99605_a11_em55
MISC
QUASI
same sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e8
001-99605_a11_em56
LOC
NO_MASK
Vienna
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e38
001-99605_a11_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
11 April 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e39
001-99605_a11_em58
ORG
NO_MASK
Municipal Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e40
001-99605_a11_em59
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e37
001-99605_a11_em60
MISC
QUASI
same sex
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e41
001-99605_a11_em61
MISC
QUASI
same-sex couples
SEX
insert
001-99605_a11_e42
001-99605_a11_em62
MISC
QUASI
homosexual marriage
SEX
insert
001-99605_a11_e43
001-99605_a11_em63
DEM
QUASI
homosexual
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e44
001-99605_a11_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
12 December 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e45
001-99605_a11_em65
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e46
001-99605_a11_em66
MISC
NO_MASK
Cossey [v. the United Kingdom]
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e47
001-99605_a11_em67
DATETIME
NO_MASK
27 September 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e48
001-99605_a11_em68
CODE
NO_MASK
10843/84
SEX
insert
001-99605_a11_e49
001-99605_a11_em69
DEM
NO_MASK
transsexual
SEX
insert
001-99605_a11_e50
001-99605_a11_em70
DEM
NO_MASK
transsexuals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e51
001-99605_a11_em71
MISC
NO_MASK
Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e52
001-99605_a11_em72
CODE
NO_MASK
28957/95
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e53
001-99605_a11_em73
MISC
QUASI
same-sex relationships
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e53
001-99605_a11_em74
MISC
QUASI
same-sex relationships
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e45
001-99605_a11_em75
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e54
001-99605_a11_em76
DATETIME
QUASI
25 February 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e3
001-99605_a11_em77
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e55
001-99605_a11_em78
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1 January 1812
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e56
001-99605_a11_em79
MISC
QUASI
Registered Partnership Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e56
001-99605_a11_em80
MISC
NO_MASK
Registered Partnership Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e56
001-99605_a11_em81
MISC
QUASI
001-99605_a11_em80
Eingetragene Partnerschaft-Gesetz
SEX
insert
001-99605_a11_e41
001-99605_a11_em82
MISC
QUASI
same-sex couples
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-99605_a11_e56
001-99605_a11_em83
MISC
NO_MASK
001-99605_a11_em80
Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e56
001-99605_a11_em84
MISC
QUASI
Registered Partnership Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-99605_a11_e57
001-99605_a11_em85
CODE
NO_MASK
135/2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e58
001-99605_a11_em86
DATETIME
QUASI
1 January 2010
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e37
001-99605_a11_em87
MISC
QUASI
same sex
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e37
001-99605_a11_em88
MISC
QUASI
same sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e56
001-99605_a11_em89
MISC
QUASI
Registered Partnership Act
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e37
001-99605_a11_em90
MISC
QUASI
same sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e56
001-99605_a11_em91
MISC
QUASI
Registered Partnership Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e32
001-99605_a11_em92
ORG
NO_MASK
Office for Matters of Personal Status
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e59
001-99605_a11_em93
ORG
NO_MASK
European Union
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e60
001-99605_a11_em94
DATETIME
QUASI
7 December 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e61
001-99605_a11_em95
DATETIME
QUASI
1 December 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e62
001-99605_a11_em96
MISC
NO_MASK
Commentary of the Charter
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e41
001-99605_a11_em97
MISC
QUASI
same-sex couples
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e41
001-99605_a11_em98
MISC
QUASI
same-sex couples
SEX
insert
001-99605_a11_e53
001-99605_a11_em99
MISC
QUASI
same-sex relationships
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e41
001-99605_a11_em100
MISC
QUASI
same-sex couples
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e63
001-99605_a11_em101
LOC
NO_MASK
Netherlands
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e64
001-99605_a11_em102
LOC
NO_MASK
Belgium
SEX
insert
001-99605_a11_e37
001-99605_a11_em103
MISC
QUASI
same sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e65
001-99605_a11_em104
MISC
NO_MASK
Nordic
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e53
001-99605_a11_em105
MISC
QUASI
same-sex relationships
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e41
001-99605_a11_em106
MISC
QUASI
same-sex couples
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e66
001-99605_a11_em107
DATETIME
QUASI
22 September 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e67
001-99605_a11_em108
MISC
NO_MASK
Family members
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e68
001-99605_a11_em109
ORG
NO_MASK
European Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e69
001-99605_a11_em110
ORG
NO_MASK
Council of 29 April 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e59
001-99605_a11_em111
ORG
NO_MASK
001-99605_a11_em93
Union
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-99605_a11_e70
001-99605_a11_em112
DEM
NO_MASK
age of 21
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e71
001-99605_a11_em113
ORG
NO_MASK
Council of Europe
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e41
001-99605_a11_em114
MISC
QUASI
same-sex couples
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e64
001-99605_a11_em115
ORG
NO_MASK
Belgium
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e63
001-99605_a11_em116
ORG
NO_MASK
Netherlands
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e72
001-99605_a11_em117
ORG
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e73
001-99605_a11_em118
ORG
NO_MASK
Portugal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e74
001-99605_a11_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e75
001-99605_a11_em120
ORG
NO_MASK
Sweden
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e41
001-99605_a11_em121
MISC
QUASI
same-sex couples
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e41
001-99605_a11_em122
MISC
QUASI
same-sex couples
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e76
001-99605_a11_em123
ORG
NO_MASK
Andorra
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e77
001-99605_a11_em124
ORG
NO_MASK
Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e78
001-99605_a11_em125
ORG
NO_MASK
Czech Republic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e79
001-99605_a11_em126
ORG
NO_MASK
Denmark
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e80
001-99605_a11_em127
ORG
NO_MASK
Finland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e81
001-99605_a11_em128
ORG
NO_MASK
France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e82
001-99605_a11_em129
ORG
NO_MASK
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e83
001-99605_a11_em130
ORG
NO_MASK
Hungary
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e84
001-99605_a11_em131
ORG
NO_MASK
Iceland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e85
001-99605_a11_em132
ORG
NO_MASK
Luxembourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e86
001-99605_a11_em133
ORG
NO_MASK
Slovenia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e87
001-99605_a11_em134
ORG
NO_MASK
Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e88
001-99605_a11_em135
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e41
001-99605_a11_em136
MISC
QUASI
same-sex couples
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-99605_a11_e89
001-99605_a11_em137
MISC
NO_MASK
Burden v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e88
001-99605_a11_em138
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e90
001-99605_a11_em139
CODE
NO_MASK
13378/05
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e91
001-99605_a11_em140
ORG
NO_MASK
Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e92
001-99605_a11_em141
ORG
NO_MASK
Liechtenstein
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e41
001-99605_a11_em142
MISC
QUASI
same-sex couples
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e93
001-99605_a11_em143
ORG
NO_MASK
Croatia
SEX
check
001-99605_a11_e41
001-99605_a11_em144
MISC
QUASI
same-sex couples
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-99605_a11_e94
001-99605_a11_em145
DATETIME
NO_MASK
last decade
Horst Michael Schalk
AUT
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Horst Michael Schalk