You are here:

Key facts of the case:

The applicants filed the case in order for the Court to declare that Criminal Code Articles 206 and 207 on the illegality of concubinage (now revoked) were illegal and anti-constitutional. The applicants also argued that the Court’s conclusion that, due to concubinage the Civil Code provisions relating to the creation of a quasi-contract do not apply, is illegal. In addition, the applicants claimed that the State did not provide them with an effective remedy and that, as a consequence, they suffered damages since provisions granting specific rights to tenants under former rent legislation did not apply to them due to their concubinage. The applicants claimed that the existence of these laws and the lack of an effective remedy were discriminatory and breached their right for private and family life under the Charter. The defendants claimed that the applicants had not exhausted all ordinary remedies and that therefore the Court did not have jurisdiction. The Court decided against the defendants and concluded that the applicants had exhausted all ordinary remedies and that it thus had jurisdiction to hear the case and to decide the claim that the illegality of concubinage was discriminatory and anti-constitutional.