By: Mujtaba Ali Tirmizey
Impunity Watch Staff Writer
ATHENS, Greece — On September 5, 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) decided that legislation preventing marriage between ex-siblings-in-law is a violation of the right to marry.
Georgios Theodorou and Sophia Tsotsorou were married in 2005, just one year after George was divorced from his previous marriage to Tsotsorou’s sister. After George and Sophia wed, Sophia’s sister complained about the union to a local prosecutor, arguing nullity on the grounds of prohibited kinship between two spouses. In 2010, the marriage was annulled by the Regional Court on the basis of Article 1357 of the Greek Civil Code, which forbids marriage between persons related by collateral descent up to the third degree. The court reasoned that since Theodorou and Tsotsorou were second-degree relatives, their marriage was barred for reasons of decency and respect for the institution of the family. Theodorou and Tsotsorou’s subsequent appeals were dismissed, and their marriage was ultimately annulled in June 2015.
In 2015, Theodorou and Tsotsorou lodged a complaint with the ECHR, citing a violation of Article 12, which proscribes the right to marry. Placing particular importance to this point, the Court noted that a consensus had developed in the marriage of ex-sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law among the member states of the Council of Europe. Only Italy and San Marino had introduced barriers to such a marriage, but these obstacles were not absolute.
The Court also noted that Theodorou and Tsotsorou had not faced any problems prior to getting married and the national authorities had not raised any objections. Tsotsorou’s sister had not complained about the marriage until approximately a year and a half later, and the prosecutor filed a formal complaint two years after the marriage. Relevant authorities only issue a marriage license after certain legal conditions have been met. Here, these authorities did not express any doubts prior to issuing this license, and for more than ten years, the couple enjoyed legal and social recognition of a married relationship and the protection provided exclusively to married couples. Lastly, the Court also observed that the Government’s arguments concerning “biological considerations” and the risk of confusion were unconvincing.
As a result, the Court held that Article 12 had been violated because the annulment of the marriage had disproportionately restricted Theodorou and Tsotsorou’s right to marry.
This decision bodes well for Italy and San Marino, the remaining members of States of the Council of Europe where such a marriage is still forbidden. Other regions of the world may also benefit from this decision, where ex-brothers and sisters-in-law’s right to marry is taboo. Lastly, a broad interpretation of this case can help other parties under Article 12 as well, which states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.”
For further information, please see: