Civil Unions (Non – Registered Partnerships) and Patients’ Rights: Problematics and the Future Perspective

Unlike the institution of matrimonial law, which has developed over several hundred years and thus has a solid legal basis, the legal framework for non-registered partnerships is a relatively recent legal phenomenon, which therefore also means that the legal framework in those countries where it is applied is not uniform and there are significant differences between different legal systems. The legal framework of non-registered partnerships is influenced by the traditions, history, culture, religion, and other factors of the country and its population. With the development of non-registered partnerships, new challenges are emerging in various fields, including healthcare in terms of ensuring patients’ rights. This results in a situation where there is a lack of regulation in society to protect all families, regardless of whether the family is based on a registered or non-registered partnership. The purpose of the article is to clarify the role, and importance, as well as crucial problematics of non-registered partnerships from the patients’ point of view. The methodological basis of the research includes general theoretical principles of scientific knowledge. This knowledge provides various aspects in the study of non-registered partnerships and the patients’ rights in healthcare. The scientific novelty is to identify the essence and importance of the fundamental rights of each person and to clarify the legal problematics of the non-registered partnership institution that influence patients’ rights in the decision-making process.

Protection of Property Rights to Property Acquired Family Unions under Legislation of Ukraine and States of the European Union

In the scientific article, the author explores the peculiarities of legal regulation of protection of property rights to property acquired in marriage by spouses, in actual, religious marriage, other family unions by its members under the civil and family law of Ukraine and some European Union states. In particular, the author determined that in Ukraine and the leading states of the European Union legal regulation of the main methods and forms of protection of property rights is carried out in accordance with the general provisions of civil law with certain features to protect the property of spouses and family unions, illegal behaviour of one of the spouses. In this aspect, there is a dualism in the legal regulation of these issues regarding the protection of property rights of spouses: in legal relations with third parties are subject to general methods of protection, in legal relations between spouses — methods defined by family law. The protection of property rights of de facto spouses, spouses in a church marriage and partners in a registered partnership has a different legal nature in the European Union: some of them do not recognize these family unions and protection of property acquired in these unions is governed by general rules; the other part of the states recognizes features in protection of the property right to the property acquired in the specified family unions, fully or partially equating them on these parameters to protection of the property right to property of spouses. In particular, French civil law lays down a special procedure for the protection of spouses’ property rights and the extension to civil partners (including de facto spouses) of the general provisions of civil law on the protection of their property rights. The German Civil Code does not recognize the legal consequences of actual marital relations, as well as church marriages, and civil partnerships concluded before 2017 (the time of recognition of same-sex marriages) in terms of protection of property rights and obligations equates to a registered marriage. Czech civil law defines the same ways of protecting the property of spouses and civil partners, and the protection of property rights acquired by de facto spouses is regulated on a general basis in accordance with the provisions on joint property and the protection of civil rights. Latvian civil law recognizes the possibility of protecting only the right of ownership of property acquired in a registered marriage, without recognizing other family unions.

The Missing Concept of Cohabitation of the Couples of the Opposite-Sex in de facto Unions in the Czech Civil Code

The paper deals with couples in de facto unions, especially the ones formed by a man and a woman. It seeks to define cohabitation and differentiate the rights and duties of cohabitees from the ones connected with the status relations between both the opposite-sex couples (marriage) and the same-sex couples (registered partnership). As there are seldom any kinds of agreements between cohabitees, special attention is devoted to the relevant legal rules in all the Books of the Czech Civil Code and their applicability to cohabitees during their relationship and after the break-up or upon the death of one of them. It is stressed that there is no difference between children born out of wedlock and within marriage. Once parenthood is legally established, there is no discrimination of non-married mothers and non-married fathers towards the children. And besides, there are special provisions that protect the weaker party: property claims of the non-married mother from the child´s father for a reasonable time and within adequate limits.

China’s Non-Recognition of Foreign Same-Sex Unions

Chinese law neither expressly recognises nor prohibits same-sex unions (‘same-sex unions’ in this article refers to homosexual relationships that are legally recognised and protected by law, including marriage, civil union, (un)registered partnership, and so on). Until now, no dispute over foreign same-sex union has been brought in a Chinese court. However, the Department of Consular Affairs of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has adopted a blanket non-recognition rule, alleging that same-sex unions would violate China’s (‘China’ hereinafter refers to the jurisdiction of Mainland China, excluding those of the Hong Kong SAR, the Macao SAR, and Taiwan) family law and the public interest. However, it is argued that foreign same-sex unions should be recognised unless such recognition would violate the public policy of the forum state. First, foreign same-sex unions should be regulated by the Chinese conflict rules, not by Chinese domestic law. Additionally, China is internationally obliged to recognise and protect fundamental human rights (right to marry). Secondly, under China’s conflict rules, a foreign same-sex union should be governed by the lex personalis or the law that has the closest connection with that union. Thirdly, as more than 40 jurisdictions throughout the world have legally recognised same-sex unions, and China itself has decriminalised homosexuality, same-sex unions would not necessarily be incompatible with China’s public policy. Fourthly, non-recognition of same-sex unions would instead cause public policy problems because it practically always favours one party over another, helping foreign same-sex couples to evade their responsibilities imposed by the relevant foreign law.

Same-sex marriage and the Lutheran Church in Finland: How rapid change in values and norms challenges the church and its decision-making

The effect of legislative changes on same-sex unions on people’s attitudes toward homosexuality is a fairly well-researched topic. There is less research on how state legislation on same-sex unions has affected churches’ attitudes and policies on registered partnership and same-sex marriage. In this paper we focus on attitudinal polarisation in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (ELCF) in the matter of same-sex marriage and why there is a gap in the attitudinal development of the church and the society. The analysis is based upon six sets of representative surveys among the Finnish population, the employees of the ELCF and the elected officials of the ELCF between the years 2012–2017. Whereas the majorities (55%) among the Finnish population and among the ELCF members (54%) are already favourable to the idea that same-sex couples should have the right to marry in the church, the ELCF has not approved of it. This situation has polarised the ELCF from within. Empirical analysis shows that the reason for the discrepancy between popular opinion and the ELCF stance stems from the fact that ELCF decision makers are older and more religious than the general membership. However, the data also shows that even among the most religious, younger age groups are already more favourable towards the same-sex marriage. Therefore, it is likely that the polarisation will lessen over time as more and more religious people accept same-sex marriage.

Pensión de viudedad y convivencia more uxorio: parejas de hecho “de derecho” y parejas de hecho “de hecho” (STSJ de Castilla y León de 10 de diciembre de 2018) = Widow’s pension and cohabitation more uxorio: domestic partnership and registered partnership (decision of the higher Court of Castilla y León of December 10, 2018)

Resumen: Se deniega la pensión de viudedad a una nacional uruguaya que había convivido con un compatriota como pareja de hecho durante veinticinco años y de cuya unión había nacido una hija. El motivo es la no inscripción de la pareja de hecho en el registro ad hoc, ni su formalización en escritura pública, conforme a lo exigido por el artículo 221 LGSS. Sobre la base del artículo 9.1 CC, la demandante alega su condición de extranjera para defender la aplicación de su ordenamiento de origen, que no establece dichos requisitos. El Tribunal rechaza el argumento, anteponiendo el carácter “ad solemnitatem” de las mencionadas exigencias, que las eleva a la categoría de requisitos constitutivos de la pareja de hecho. Precisamente sobre este carácter constitutivo se sustenta la distinción, a efectos de Seguridad Social, entre parejas de hecho “de derecho” y parejas de hecho “de hecho”.Palabras clave: pensión de viudedad, Derecho internacional privado, uniones/parejas de hecho, inscripción registral, documento notarial.Abstract: A Uruguayan national is denied the widow’s pension due to dead of her co-habiting partner, also Uruguayan. They have been living together during twenty five years, and they had daughter, who was born in Uruguay. The partnership was not registered neither was certified in a public deed, as required by the Spanish social security legislation in order to be entitled to a survivor’s pension. The applicant seeks the application of her national law, that doesn’t have these requirements. The Court rejects the request considering that these requirements have constitutive nature. This constitutive nature is used by the Spanish courts for distinguishing between unmarried partner formal and unmarried partner factual.Keywords: widow’s pension, private international law, unmarried couples/life partners, registration, notarial deed.