Over the years the AIRE Centre has intervened in a number of  LGBTI+ cases but we need funding to be able to continue our work.

We are passionate in our work for equality and we have been involved in a number of key LGBTI+ cases relating to issues including equal marriage rights, LGBTI+ hate crime, and LGBTI+ asylum seekers. 

With the money pledged we will continue to fight for the rights of LGBTI+ individuals who are facing human rights violations and discrimination to ensure that they have equal access to justice.

The funds raised will go towards our legal work including:

• Written legal submissions to the European Court of Human Rights, European Court of Justice, and other courts
• Strategic third party interventions that we undertake on the behalf of claimants, choosing cases that will show to have the most impact
• Trainings on EU equality law
• Our pro bono legal advice line that receives thousands of requests every year

You can find more information on our recent cases below.

Equal Marriage Rights 

Coman and Hamilton

Adrian Coman, a Romanian gay rights activist, wants the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to rule that his 2010 marriage in Belgium to U.S. citizen Claibourn Robert Hamilton, is legal in the way it would be if they were a heterosexual couple. The way it stands, Hamilton would not benefit from legal protection as Coman's spouse if they settled in Romania. The couple live in New York.

The AIRE Centre intervened in the Romanian Constitutional Court on the couples EU rights, and argued for the recognition of a husband regardless of the sex of his partner. 

Opposition to same-sex relationships is often fierce in Romania, where homosexuality was only decriminalized in 2002. The case would have significant implications for other EU countries where same sex marriage is not recognised.  

Olari v Italy

This case involve six Italian nationals who said that the absence of any legal provision allowing them to marry or to access another form of civil union was a form of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. 

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg agreed and said that Italy had violated the human rights of same-sex couples by its failure to officially recognise their relationships. Because of this decision Italy must pass a civil partnership law, although there is still no right to marry for same-sex couples. This case is seen as a stepping stone towards full legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Europe.

The AIRE Centre was one of the interveners in the ECtHR and you can read our written submissions here.

LGBTI+ Hate Crime

Sabalić v Croatia. 

A woman in Croatia was attacked by a man in a bar, after she had told him that she was gay. During the attack he stated that all lesbians should be killed.  However the man was only prosecuted for minor charged and subject to a fine of 40 Euros.

In the Croatian courts the woman unsuccessfully complained that the Croatian authorities had failed to take appropriate action against her attacker. The AIRE Centre has provided evidence to the European Court in Strasbourg.

The AIRE Centre intervention was about the prevalence and the nature of violent crimes motivated, in whole or in part, by prejudice against people's real or imputed sexual orientation and/or gender identity in Council of Europe Member States. It has also raised concerns about the manner in which those States have, or have not, responded to those crimes breaches the human rights of the victims of these crimes and that the State has a positive obligation to address inhuman and degrading treatment suffered by sexual minorities

Klobucar v Croatia

This case concerned the questioning of a woman over a period of 6 years in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation. 

During the questioning she was ill-treated by two police officers who made inappropriate references to her sexual orientation, unlawfully confiscated her private diary, searched her flat and subjected her to polygraph examination although she had a diagnosis of epilepsy and drug abuse and was thus under the strong medicaments. She was also on occasion denied access to a lawyer. 

The AIRE Centre argues that jointly with the ICJ and ILGA-Europe submitted written submissions focusing on the nature and scope of the positive obligations of Contracting Parties under the Convention in respect of allegations disclosing credible evidence of treatment prohibited under Article 3; same-sex sexual orientation and/or gender identity as a ground of discrimination; and the duty to take all reasonable steps to identify any discriminatory motive in connection with allegations of ill-treatment.

MC and AC v. Romania

This case concerned an attack on people lawfully participating in the annual gay pride march in Bucharest. 

The victims were punch and kicked by a group of 6 men and a woman, after they got on a metro train to take them home. During the attack they kept on shouting: “You poofs go to the Netherlands!” (Poponarilor, duceţi-vă în Olanda!). The attack lasted for about two minutes. Despite witnesses to the incident and a photographer having taken pictures of the injuries suffered, the police investigation took 5 years to complete and at the end the decision as made not to prosecute the alleged attackers as the crimes had had become statute-barred.. The prosecutor's office upheld this decision although if the the investigation had looked at whether the attack had been motivated by the victim's sexual orientation it would not have been time-barred.

The AIRE Centre argues that the investigations into the allegations of ill-treatment took too long, were inadequately dealt with and failed to take into account the likelihood that these attacks were motivated by homophobia. The case is now in the European Court in Strasbourg. 

LGBTI+ Asylum Seekers

AE v Finland

This case involves an Iranian national. In Iran homosexuality may be punished by death. The man who was also a Kurd by ethnic origin and a Muslim. As a boy he realised he was gay. In 2008 a number of his these friends who were also gay, were arrested by the police at a private party. The following day the man’s father told him that the police were also looking for him, though he had not attended the party which his friends were at. Two days later he fled Iran and went to for Turkey where he spent over a month, before going to Sweden and then to Finland where he claimed asylum. Finland rejected his application and ordered his removal to Iran. 

The AIRE Centre argued that the man could not be expelled to a place where he would, in all likelihood, be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR (cruel and degrading treatment) because of his sexual orientation. We also said that it It was also irrelevant, as argued by the Finnish government, that the man could avoid this treatment by “being discreet” about his sexual orientation. 

During the course of the proceedings the case settled, as Finland finally granted the man a continuous residence permit valid for a period of one year with a possibility of renewal.

AT v Sweden

This case also concerned an Iranian national who applied for asylum, this time in Sweden. He claimed that if he was returned to Iran, he would risk being sentenced to death or subjected to torture or ill-treatment because of his sexual orientation. 

His application was rejected by the Migration Court of Appeal in Sweden and he complained to the European Court of Human Rights that the decision of the Swedish court violated Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition against torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In AT v Sweden we have argued:

• that there is an obligation on state authorities to ensure that the risk of person returning to their country of origin is properly assessed
• that requiring someone to suppress a fundamental aspect of their one’s identity (such as their sexual orientation), is a violation of their human rights
• The criminalisation of consensual same-sex conduct in certain countries means that a person should not be returned to that country as it potentially leaves them open to prosecution, ill treatment or worse

O.M v Hungary

This case concerned an Iranian asylum seeker who was held in administrative in detention in Hungary for two months after having been forced to flee Iran due to his sexuality.

The European Court said that the detention was arbitrary and unjustified, in particular that the Hungarian authorities had failed to take the man’s sexual orientation into account in deciding his vulnerability in the detention centre. He was awarded damages.