1

The European Court of Human Rights is examining the application of a Slovak man who lost his country’s citizenship after taking up British citizenship following his “marriage” to another man, a British national.

2

Slovakia allows its citizens to take up the citizenship of another state provided that this occurs as a result of marriage. However, this applies only to marriage understood as a union of a woman and a man.

3

The Ordo Iuris Institute has submitted its legal opinion to the Strasbourg Court, pointing out that states have the sovereign right to decide on the rules for acquiring and losing citizenship and that there is no international treaty that would require Slovakia to recognize so-called same-sex marriages contracted abroad.

An application concerning a British-Slovak couple of two men who contracted a so-called same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom has been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights. The Slovak man applied for British citizenship, which he obtained, but this resulted in the automatic loss of his Slovak citizenship. Under Slovak law, a Slovak national loses Slovak citizenship by operation of law upon acquiring a second citizenship, unless this occurs after five years of residence in another state or as a result of marriage. The latter exception did not apply to the couple in question, because Slovakia defines marriage as a union of a woman and a man.

The man lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that Slovakia had violated his right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights — ECHR), the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 ECHR), and the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 ECHR).

With the consent of the President of the First Section of the ECtHR, the Ordo Iuris Institute joined the proceedings as amicus curiae. In its legal opinion, Ordo Iuris pointed out that, as part of their sovereign competence to regulate state citizenship, member states also have the power to determine the legal effects of a marriage between one of their citizens and a foreign national. Any exceptions to this principle should derive from the express provisions of international agreements. The opinion also noted that one of the aims of provisions restricting the possibility of retaining dual citizenship is the protection of national identity. For many member states of the Council of Europe, the definition of marriage as a union of a woman and a man is a key element of that identity.

Ordo Iuris also recalled that marriage is one of the oldest legal institutions, having existed continuously throughout the history of Europe and being firmly rooted in both domestic and international law. Thirty-two member states regulate the status of marriage in their national constitutions. Of these, the constitutions of 14 states define marriage as a union of a woman and a man. Marriage has also been defined in certain international agreements, each of which guarantees the right to marry to men and women (Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights), and not to “men and men” or “women and women.”

The authors of the opinion also emphasized that, since international law permits, and even promotes, the definition of marriage as a union of a woman and a man, it should not preclude national provisions that deny same-sex “marriages” the privileges reserved for marriages understood as unions of women and men. One such privilege may be the right to retain dual citizenship where the second citizenship was acquired in connection with marriage.

The proceedings before the ECtHR in this case are ongoing, and the date of the judgment is not known. The Ordo Iuris Institute will monitor the proceedings closely and report on their progress.

Case of L.L. v. Slovakia (application no. 13880/24).

See also:

Source of cover photo: iStock