family” in Article 12 also included de facto unions, “where the parties are living together out of wedlock,” but in the case of same-sex couples it had only recognized that their relationship constitutes “private life” but not “family life” (paras. 91-92). In the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, the ECHR changed that jurisprudence (as correctly indicated in para. 174 of the judgment to which this vote refers), considering that since 2001 there had been “a rapid evolution in social attitudes towards same-sex couples in many Member States”, and “a considerable number” of these had “afforded legal recognition to same-sex couples.” Similarly, certain provisions of European Union law also reflect “a growing tendency to include same-sex couples in the notion of ‘family’” (para. 93). “In view of this evolution,” the ECHR considered it “artificial to maintain the view that, in contrast to a different-sex couple, a same-sex couple cannot enjoy ‘family life’ for the purposes of Article 8”, and that, “consequently, the relationship of the applicants, a cohabiting same-sex couple living in a stable de facto partnership, falls within the notion of ‘family life’, just as the relationship of a different-sex couple in the same situation would.” (Para. 94). 14. Alleged violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 8. Having concluded that the facts of the case fell within “the notion of ‘private life’ as well as ‘family life’”, and that Article 14 taken together with Article 8 was applicable (para. 95), the ECHR then considered whether it had been violated (paras. 96-110). To reach this determination it would have to find “a difference in the treatment of persons in relevantly similar situations,” which would be “discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification”; in other words, if it does not pursue a “legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed the aim sought to be realized.” In that respect, the States “enjoy a margin of appreciation” (para. 96). On the one hand, “just like differences based on sex, differences based on sexual orientation require particularly serious reasons by way of justification,” but on the other hand, the States are usually allowed “a wide margin” when it comes to “general measures of economic or social strategy” (para. 97), and one of the relevant factors for determining the scope of the margin of appreciation may be “the existence or non-existence of common ground.” The ECHR started from “the premise that same-sex couples are just as capable as different-sex couples of entering into stable and committed relationships,” and therefore are in a “relevantly similar situation to a different-sex couple as regards their need for legal recognition and protection of their relationship” (para. 99). Nevertheless, the Court decided that, although the applicants had not been permitted to marry, a law subsequent to lodging their complaint but prior to the judgment (the Registered Partnerships Act11), which entered into force on January 1, 2010) had provided alternative legal recognition (para. 102). While there is “an emerging European consensus toward legal recognition of same-sex couples,” which has “developed rapidly over the past decade,” the States that provide for legal recognition are not yet a majority. This question must therefore be considered as one of “evolving rights with no established consensus, where States must also enjoy a margin appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes” (para. 105). In conclusion, having examined the juridical status of registered partnerships and the differences that persist with respect to marriages, the ECHR said that it did not see “any indication that the respondent State has exceeded its margin of appreciation in its choice of rights and obligations conferred by registered partnership” (para. 109) and found that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (para. 110). Case X, Y and Z v. United Kingdom 15. The facts of the case may be summarized as follows: the first applicant, "X", a femaleto-male transsexual, was born in 1955. However, from the age of four years “X” felt like a 11 Supra, para. 6. 6