Saucedo Gomez v Spain [1999]

1. Facts:

• Gomez, who had been cohabiting with her partner for 18 years, was separated from him and sought financial claims similar to those available to married spouses under Spanish law.

• At the time, Spanish law did not provide the same financial rights and protections to cohabiting partners as it did to married couples, which led Gomez to argue that this disparity violated her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

• Gomez claimed that the inability to make financial claims comparable to those of a spouse constituted a breach of her Convention rights, particularly under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

2. Outcome:

• The European Commission of Human Rights ruled that the difference in treatment between married couples and cohabiting partners was justifiable under Spanish law.

• The Commission found that the protection of the traditional family structure provided by marriage was a legitimate aim that could justify the differential treatment of cohabiting partners.

• The Commission concluded that the Spanish government’s approach to family law, which prioritised traditional marriage, did not constitute a violation of Gomez’s Convention rights.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Legitimacy of Differential Treatment: The ruling affirmed that protecting the traditional family unit was considered a legitimate aim by the Commission. This stance reflected a broader acceptance of varying national approaches to family law and the prioritisation of marriage as a legal institution.

• Article 8 and Article 14: The case highlighted the tension between individual rights to family life and the state’s discretion in defining and protecting family structures. While Article 8 of the ECHR protects private and family life, Article 14 prohibits discrimination. However, the Commission accepted that differential treatment in this context was justifiable to uphold traditional values.

• Protection of Traditional Family Values: The Commission’s decision underscored the notion that countries could prioritise traditional family forms, such as marriage, and that such priorities could be used to justify different legal treatments. This approach allowed for a degree of flexibility in how countries could regulate family and financial matters.

• Legal Precedent and Evolution: Gomez v Spain serves as a precedent in understanding how family law and human rights intersect. The decision reflects the historical context of the time, where traditional family structures were more strongly protected. However, this case also illustrates the evolving nature of family law, as later legal developments in many jurisdictions have expanded protections to include cohabiting partners and non-traditional family forms.

• Ongoing Debates: The case is often referenced in discussions about the balance between protecting traditional family institutions and recognising the rights of individuals in various types of relationships. It highlights the challenges courts face in navigating between established legal traditions and evolving social norms regarding family and personal relationships.