| Abstract [eng] |
A right to private family life is protected on both (national and international) levels. Universal nature of this right does not eliminate problems which arise from its implementation in practice. Legal regulation does not reflect changing social reality; state’s culture, custums, religion has an undeniable influence on content and ambit of private family life; states’ authorities have a wide margin of appreciation in determining what measures to take in order to implement this right and to guarantee its protection. All of these problems result in the unanswered questions about homosexuals’, unmarried partners’, single parents’ right to private family life and its extent, state’s positive and negative obligations. This master thesis approaches the right to private family life, its content and limits by analyzing pluralistic concept of family, parent-child relationships and related obligations of the state, imigration and its impact on right to family reunification. The author focuses on answering these questions: which subjects have a right to private family life; what institutes conclude this right and what problems arise from it in pratice; how are the right of free movement and the right to family life protected; how is Article 8 para. 2 of ECHR (that indicates the circumstances in which public authorities can validly interferance with the right to family life) applied in reality. The research has showed that right to private family life is limited by narrow definition of family. This limitation on the right in question is especially noticeable in national law (there is an equal sign between family and marriage in Lithuanian Republic). EU institutions have taken actions in order to overstep this narrow concept, however, these actions can not be held sufficiently effective. In spite of the fact that ECHR foresees the widest definition of family members, it still differentiates the ambit of family private life based on sexual orientation. Problems relating the right to know one’s origins, paternity establishment, adoption, care, parents’ and children’s right to communicate are solved by examining all circumstances and striking a fair balance between these competing interests. All questions should be answered in the light of child’s best interests. The institutes mentioned above presuppose state’s obligations not only to ensure that it does not deprive person of the right to private family life, but also to take positive action to recognize family relationships and protect them. Even though, the states enjoy wide margin of appreciation in determining its family policy, it has to be mentioned that a failure to fulfill positive and negative obligations, as well as unreasonable restrictions on this right can be noticed in practice. Migration policy depends on the state’s national laws, its oligations to EU and ECHR. It is universally acknowledged that the right to family reunification is a part of family private life. Nevertheless, questionable restrictions are set by ECHR in its case law. |
