Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Moldova

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Oliari case and Moldova

It does not mean what you keep insisting, according to reliable sources:

The most promising judgment on the road to legal recognition so far was Oliari and Others v. Italy, rendered in 2015. Here, the merely symbolic legal protection available to same-sex couples in Italy was found to violate Article 8. The Court adjudged for the very first time that the absence of a sufficient legal framework protecting the rights of same-sex couples violates Article 8. While a fair balance must “be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole” (§ 160), in this case, there was no real competition: Not only did the majority of the Italian population support the recognition and protection of homosexual couples (§ 181), but the Italian Constitutional Court had already called on the Government to recognise the rights of same-sex couples. /
These facts of the case led to a legal insecurity: Arguably, it was the intervention of Italy’s highest judicial authorities that triggered Article 8, rather than Article 8 imposing a positive obligation on Italy to intervene (in fact, the Concurring Opinion insisted on this narrower reasoning). So the question remained: How much of Oliari could be applied to cases where there was no support of the community for LGBTQI rights, but rather disdain?
— https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/article-14-echr-in-the-closet

You quote Ragone & Volpe but seem to miss what it says a few sentences later:

While innovative, this jurisprudence raises questions regarding its future applicability to other CoE Member States—in particular non-EU Member States—that still fail to provide a legal framework for “recognition and protection” of same-sex unions... Openly focusing on the Italian experience, the case seems to have little potential validity outside that specific domestic context. The judgment constantly refers to the Italian legislature, the Italian Constitutional Court, and the specific social situation of Italy. It is unclear whether the Court may reach the same result in a country with a different domestic courts’ orientation and a different public opinion.

Furthermore, the question of whether ECtHR rulings have erga omnes effects is disputed. Some member states argue that the rulings apply only to the country concerned. According to that view, Moldova would not be under any obligation to introduce partnerships until there is a relevant ruling to that country.

This is why you cannot just cite the case and make inferences based on that, but must rely on secondary sources that discuss the situation with regards to the country concerned (Moldova). (t · c) buidhe 06:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]