• Home
  • About us
  • People
  • Blog
  • News
  • Video
  • Webinars
  • Seminars
  • Podcasts
  • Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Working Papers
    • OxHRH Annual Report
    • Books & Chapters
    • U of OxHRH Journal
  • Events
  • Journal
  • GDPR Compliance
  • Home
  • Home OHRH
  • Media
  • Search
  • Test page
  • Publications
  • About us
  • News
  • A big page
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Site Map
  • Legal
  • Event archive
  • Blog
    • Comments Policy
    • Contribute to the Blog
  • Events
  • Journal
  • People
  • publications test
  • Publications New
    • Inner Publications Landing
  • #16346 (no title)
Oxford Human Rights Hub logo
  • Home
  • About us
  • People
  • Blog
  • News
  • Media
  • Events
  • Publications
  • Journal

Czech Constitutional Court: No Recognition of Foreign Adoption by Same-Sex Couples

Barbara Havelková & Terezie Boková - 29th January 2021
Children's Rights | Equality and Non-Discrimination | Relationship Rights | Right to Privacy
By Tradlands from San Francisco, United States CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=93185989

The recent decision of the Czech Constitutional Court (‘CCC’), Pl. ÚS 6/20, against allowing recognition of foreign adoption decisions in Czechia is harmful in outcome and evasive and formalistic in its reasoning.

The case was brought by a same-sex couple who are civil partners and adoptive parents to two children under the law of New Jersey. One of the partners is Czech. The Czech Civil Code (s 800) only allows adoption for married couples and exceptionally for individuals. It thus does not allow unmarried couples to adopt. Foreign adoptions which involve a Czech citizen are only recognised if they ‘would be legal according to Czech substantive law’ under the Act on International Private Law (s 63(1)). This provision’s constitutionality was in doubt in proceedings before a regional court which submitted the case to the CCC. At stake was the protection of private and family life and the fact that the provision made it impossible for the deciding court to consider the best interests of the child. The Court, deciding as ‘plenary’, found the provision constitutional by a 11:3 majority.

Instead of performing a human rights assessment, the majority cast the problem as a matter of conflict of laws. Here, they exploited the fact that rather than challenging the general provision of the Civil Code, the applicant court correctly focused only on the provision that prevented the recognition of foreign adoption. The majority decided to play the provisions against each other, suggesting that any foreign adoption is a ‘circumvention’ of domestic law and that recognising foreign adoptions would somehow privilege them vis-à-vis Czech rules by giving them ‘special importance’. By focusing on the conflict of laws aspect, the majority could also more credibly claim that the issue be best left to the domestic legislator.

Additionally, the majority downplayed all issues that did not fit with its evasion of the human rights issues. First, they dismissed series of cases by the ECtHR which bid the states to recognise and protect factual realities of lived family constellations—eg Wagner v Luxembourg or Mennesson v France—as not relevant because they did not fit the exact fact pattern before it. Second, they focused only on the lack of violation of the negative right—for family relations to not to be disturbed—and ignored the positive obligation to facilitate the creation and development of families, also contained in these ECtHR cases. Third, even more strikingly, the judgement never mentioned the CCC’s own previous case-law which would support a ruling to the contrary. In I. ÚS 3226/16, a CCC chamber established that the principles of best interest of the child and right to family life require a recognition of both same-sex spouses as parents of their surrogacy-born soneven if the Czech legal order does not foresee it. Fourth, the majority cast the problems which the current legal situation might cause the family as ‘hypothetical worries of economic nature’. Aside from the fact this ignored the symbolic harm of treating a family of four as a random grouping of people the moment they touch Czech soil, it also ignored real-life material consequences just waiting to happen. As the dissenters pointed out, the lack of recognition impacts not only inheritance rights, but also the ability of family members to receive medical information or to stay with each other in cases of hospitalisation and other situations when the parents need to represent their children’s interests. It can also impact the children’s ability to become Czech (and thus EU) citizens and to travel without restrictions. As the dissenters pointed out, one should not have to wait for these situations to happen. Fifth, while the majority said that both family life and best interests of the child could be overridden, they did not say what the competing rights, interests, or values were, nor did they perform a proportionality assessment.

While this case concerns a very specific scenario, it bodes ill for any judicial challenges to other limitations and gaps in LGBT+ and same-sex couples’ rights (such as lack of marriage equality) in Czechia today.

Author profile

Barbara Havelková is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law and Tutorial Fellow in Law at St Hilda’s College. She previously held posts at University of Cambridge (Emmanuel College) and Oxford (Balliol, Lincoln). She worked for Clifford Chance Prague, trained at the Legal Service of the European Commission and in the Chambers of AG Poiares Maduro at the Court of Justice of the European Union. She was an academic visitor at several law schools, including Harvard University and University of Michigan as a Fulbright scholar and the Jean Monnet Center of NYU Law School as an Emile Noël Fellow. Between 2014 and 2017, Barbara acted as an Advisor to the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic on issues of gender and law.

Terezie Boková is a PhD student at Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic and work as a judicial aide at the Czech Supreme Administrative Court.

Citations

Barbara Havelková and Terezie Boková, “Czech Constitutional Court: No Recognition of Foreign Adoption by Same-Sex Couples”, (OxHRH Blog, January 2021), <http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/in-terms-of-this-holding-the-appellants-argued-that-the-court-of-appeal-failed-to-properly-interpret-and-apply-international-law-on-the-right-to-housing-and-illegal-and-forceful-evictions-the-suprem> [Date of access].

Comments

  1. Kishor Dere says:
    February 3, 2021 at 10:31 am

    Human rights versus conflict of laws is an interesting dichotomy. Lack of efforts to reconcile the two concepts by the learned judges seems to have trumped human rights in the instant case. Professor Barbara Havelková and Dr. Terezie Boková offer an insightful analysis of the majority decision of the Czech Constitutional Court on the controversial issue of foreign adoption by same-sex couples. The dissenters or minority judgment as highlighted by authors of the blogpost is equally important. It may happen that as the churning continues in the Czech Republic on these issues of adoption, inheritance rights, and rights of same-sex couples over a period of time, the minority view could become the majority opinion.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related blog posts

Creation of a Genetic Bank in India: Unconstitutional and Threat to Human Rights
Constitutional Changes in Scotland – I: Incorporation of International Treaties, Devolution and Effective Accountability
Youth Led Litigation Highlights the Intergenerational Impact of Climate Change

Related events

New Oxford vs Cambridge Moot Court Case Competition on Disability Law
External

Related news

U of OxHRH J Call for Submissions-Taking Stock: Ten Years of the Equality Act 2010

Contact Us

oxfordhumanrightshub@law.ox.ac.uk

Oxford Human Rights Hub
The Faculty of Law, University of Oxford,
St Cross Building,
St Cross Road,
Oxford OX1 3UL

© 2021 Oxford Human Rights Hub | Site by One


Sign up for the OHRH Newsletter

Your email address*:

New email sign up
reCAPTCHA
* Find out how we use your data