Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

25 January 2013 - first reading[edit]

The first reading of three draft bills (proposed by each of the political parties - PO, RP, SLD) on civil unions (including same-sex couples). Voting: 12-17 at 9:00 - 11:00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.185.74 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

80.53.83.194 added content[edit]

80.53.83.194 added all the following to the article, which may be useful but are not in the form that an article needs to take, so I'm moving it here:

---

I found informations about recognition of same sex partnerships in other countries,like: Switzerland (6-3-04,national), Luxembourg (9-01-04), Bazilian's region RIO GRANDE DE SUL(03-04,as result of court decision) & national parliament passed legistlation giving recognition to lesbian and gay coupels late last year, Lichtenstein (2002). Other countries recognised unregistered cohabitation, like: Hungary (1996), Israel (2004), Croatia (2003),some Italian's regions recognised "coppie di fatto" (since 2004)[ www.gay.tv, www.gaynews.it ] And other countries consider to recognise same sex coupels, like: Greece ('05), Hungary ('07), Slovenia ('05), Austria, Czech Republic ('07){this country faild Partner Bill 4rd time in 12 February 2005, but started work on new one. Expect introdused it in 2 years.}, South Australia State ('05) {by Liberals}, many Latin American countries includ: Panama, Peru, Chile, Brasil {Civil Marriage), Argentina {Civil Marriage), Colombia, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico City, Taiwan (Civil Marriage) many US's States... (Most of this countries have introdused Bills in their parliaments in 2004)

You will find more informations on this there:

http://www.gaypasg.org/GayPASG/Legal%20joinings%20and%20recognition%20of%20same-sex%20couples.htm

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall/information_bank/partnership/international/countries_list.html?CFID=845464&CFTOKEN=13653633

http://www.equality-network.org/FAQ.shtml

http://www.rklambda.at/dokumente/news_2004/News-en-PA-041202-spoe-gleichstellung.pdf

http://www.rklambda.at/

http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section.php?id=5&detail=521

http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section.php?id=5&detail=512

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/7566

http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/content.php?type=1&id=91

---

Aris Katsaris 18:15, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here== Results? ==

The article says that vote was expected in April. Does anybody have more info on that?


Speaker of polish Sejm - Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz (SLD - leader of presidential candidate), has blocked (21 July 2005) "same-sex relationships" bill, to approve it by parliament. So, this act has disappeared. Now there is NOT new bill!

---

It seems to me that given the results of the last election in Poland, the "this is moving ahead today" tone of this article is no longer current. From Paris, 27 Jan 06

Unregistered cohabitation in Poland[edit]

Hi. I'm wondering if we should include Poland under unregistered cohabitation. In the recent case of Kozak v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that tenancy succession benefits provided to those in "de facto marital cohabitation" must also extend to same-sex couples. See here for a brief overview of the case. The ruling appears to be very similar to Karner v. Austria (2003), on which basis Austria was included in the "unregistered cohabitation" section of the template before it passed registered partnerships. See Recognition of same-sex unions in Austria. The reason why I'm unsure of adding Poland is that I don't know whether the decision has any applicability beyond the particular plaintiff in the case. I think Poland should only be included if, as a result of Kozak v. Poland, same-sex couples are now recognised as being in "de facto marital cohabitation" for the purposes of tenancy succession law. Thanks, Ronline 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the decision does seem reminiscent to the Austria ruling. However, I agree with you that we do not know whether the ruling applies broadly. --haha169 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Rulings of ECHR does not apply automatically to all cases. Everybody who wants to execute rights implyinf of this ruling needs to go to court. Furthermore, in Poland , doesn't exist something like "unregistered cohabitation" in the sense of family law, so this ruling doesn't change anything so far. A Man from Poland (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, well clearly there is some recognition of "de facto marital cohabitation" under Polish law. Does this only apply to tenancy succession, or also to other areas of law? (e.g. inheritance, social security, etc). Ronline 14:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Informations about status of cohabitations http://fragolina.pl/artykuly/Konkubinat_405 http://www.kancelaria.home.pl/images/artykuly/konkubinat.html Ron 1987 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently it is only tenancy succession under this ruling, but it does not work the way as it is in USA for example. In Poland only rulings made by Polish Supreme Court or Constitutional Tribunal have the power of law. Ruling by ECHR applies only to situation in which was made until the parliament enact proper legislation. But everyone who will go with similar case to ECHR will win. A Man from Poland (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is still not clear yet, whether the Polish law recognizes same-sex unions[edit]

These are judgments for one case of a homosexual couple in which the Supreme Court held that a homosexual relationship is not a cohabitation (defined solely as the union of man and woman). However, the court described same sex union as a partnership. Besides, it found, that there is no basis for this to cohabitation and partnership be treated differently by the law. Polish law generally does not cover informal cohabiting couples, but some laws on different topics also include couples living in informal relationships. (see: Sytuacja prawna i społeczna osób LGBT w Polsce/Uznanie związków osób tej samej płci on Polish language wiki site))

Definition of cohabitation by the Supreme Court:[edit]

Według Sądu Najwyższego: „konkubinat to wspólne pożycie analogiczne do małżeńskiego, tyle, że pozbawione legalnego węzła. Oznacza to istnienie ogniska domowego charakteryzującego się duchową, fizyczną i ekonomiczną więzią, łączącą mężczyznę i kobietę. Konkubinat nie odnosi się więc do związków osób tej samej płci, które najczęściej określa się jako związki partnerskie. Konkubinat pełni podobną do małżeństwa rolę, przy czym brakuje mu cech sformalizowania woli wzajemnego pożycia.”

Some judgments for gay coupe:[edit]

WYROK SĄDU APELACYJNEGO W BIAŁYMSTOKU

z dnia 23 lutego 2007 r. Sygn. akt I ACa 590/06 1. Pod pojęciem konkubinatu należy rozumieć stabilną, faktyczną wspólnotę osobisto-majątkową dwojga osób. Bez znaczenia we wspomnianym aspekcie jest płeć. 2. Nie ma podstaw do stosowania odmiennych zasad przy rozliczaniu konkubinatu homoseksualnego niż te, które mają zastosowanie odnośnie konkubinatu heteroseksualnego. http://bialystok.sa.sisco.info/?id=1352

WYROK SĄDU NAJWYŻSZEGO W WARSZAWIE

Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego - Izba Cywilna z dnia 6 grudnia 2007 r. IV CSK 301/2007 Jeśli osoby pozostające w związku partnerskim dorobiły się majątku, to po jego ustaniu należy go rozliczyć zgodnie z przepisami o bezpodstawnym wzbogaceniu.

Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego - Izba Cywilna z dnia 6 grudnia 2007 r. IV CSK 326/2007 Do rozliczeń majątkowych po rozpadzie związku nieformalnego sąd nie może stosować reguł prawa rodzinnego o podziale dorobku małżeńskiego. Skoro nie ma przepisów, które regulowałyby konkubinat jako trwałą wspólnotę osobistą i majątkową, do ich rozliczeń majątkowych mają zastosowanie wyłącznie przepisy kodeksu cywilnego. http://dziennik3rp.blogspot.com/2007/12/nie-ma-wsplnoci-jest-bezpodstawne.html http://www.rp.pl/artykul/4,74934.html


However, this is unlikely, as Civic Platform opposes the legalization of registered partnerships. Are you sure?[edit]

I would be not so sure that Civic Platform (PO) will not support the Partnership Law. We should remember that most of the center-right parties in Western Europe has changed (over time, of course) his views on gay rights. PO waiting the same. Whats more, any such law will be passed not earlier than for a few (3-4) years. During this time the public opinion will change in Poland. If more Poles will support partnership law, so PO will not be against it. The position of the PO stated in this article comes from 2008, and now we have 2010. Although not much has changed in that respect, it is some progress has occurred. Even now, Warsaw PO, was ready to support EuroPride, but did not do this just because according to studies made for this purpose, this could be a little loose. Besides, it may be also the subject of the coalition agreement with the PO-SLD after the parliamentary elections in 2011. Not forgetting also that some PO politicians have openly support gay rights for a certain extent, including the President Bronislaw Komorowski.

In addition, another important issue is that the partnerships law to be legalize in any country had to wait for 10-15 years of public debate on this issue. Poland started its the debate in 2000. So far, there were three bills (2002, 2003, 2007) on partnership law. Only as one of them (2003) was discussed in parliament and was passed by the Upper House of parliament in 2004. During the debate, public opinion has changed. Support for the law increased from 15% in 2002 to 46% in 2005. Now, the SLD is working on a new project. This project will be sent to the parliament for several months and was sat to cause of public debate. Nobody of course believe that a such proposal will be adopted in current term of the parliament, but it has to convince public opinion to approve such a bill in the ending of the next term of the parliament.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.136.157 (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 

The chances of passing a bill on civil partnerships (2011)[edit]

It is almost certain that in this term of the Parliament the partnership law will be not passed. Perhaps, however, the first reading of the law would be held yet in this parliament. Among the major parliamentary clubs PiS and PSL declared that they will vote against the bill, SLD will vote in favor, and PO gives free voting for its members. Indeed, just the vote on the Act and initiate a public debate in this term will be very successful.

It is a real chance that this bill will be finally enacted in the new term after the parliamentary elections in October 2011. PO (Civic Platform) does not want to support this law before the elections because of fears to lose conservative electorate. Besides, not all PO members (mostly more conservative) supports this law. On the other hand, also the public support for the bill increased to 54% (2011). Among the electorates: SLD 3/4 and PO 2/3 supports this bill, while in the electorate of PiS 2/3 does not support this bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.57.146 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Recognition of same-sex unions in Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)