法律援助署五十周年紀念特刊 | Legal Aid Department 50th Anniversary Commemorative Publication

Judgment of Court of Final Appeal ． The protection of the institution of marriage as defined by the laws of Hong Kong was a legitimate aim. To that extent, the local legal landscape and societal circumstances are relevant to the issue of justification. However, reliance on the absence of a majority consensus as a reason for rejecting minority’s claim was inimical in principle to fundamental rights. ． It was not accepted that heterosexual marriage would be undermined by the extension of employment and tax benefits to same-sex married couples. ． The Court of Final Appeal held that there was no rational connection between denying the Appellant’s employment and tax benefits and the aim of protecting or not undermining the institution of marriage in Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal’s analysis that restricting the benefits to heterosexual married couples because it was the only form of marriage recognised in Hong Kong law was rejected as it denied equality to persons of different sexual orientation. ． The Court of Final Appeal ruled in favour of the Appellant for both Decisions. 終審法院裁決 ． 保障香港法例所界定的婚姻制度是合法目的。就此 而言，在考慮是否有理可據時，本地的法律環境和 社會情況是相關的考慮因素。不過，以欠缺多數人 的共識為由拒絕少數人的申索，在原則上牴觸基本 權利。 ． 不接納把僱傭及稅務福利延伸至適用於同性已婚伴 侶會削弱異性婚姻這論點。 ． 終審法院認為，拒絕向上訴人提供僱傭及稅務福利 與保障或不削弱香港的婚姻制度，兩者並無合理關 聯。上訴法庭的分析指，只限異性已婚伴侶享有有 關福利屬有理可據，理由是異性婚姻是香港法律承 認的唯一婚姻形式，終審法院對此不予接納，認為 此分析否定不同性傾向人士的平等權利。 ． 終審法院裁定上訴人就上述兩項決定提出的上訴得直。 Grounds of Appeal ． Same principles should apply in the challenges to both Decisions which should fall or stand together. ． No rational connection between both Decisions that denied the Appellant’s benefits and the aim of protecting or not undermining the institution of marriage in Hong Kong. 上訴理據 ． 針對上述兩項決定提出的質疑須依據相同原則，一 視同仁地予以考慮。 ． 上述兩項決定拒絕向上訴人提供福利，這與保障或 不削弱香港的婚姻制度沒有合理關聯。 Going Forward ． Support in Hong Kong For Same-sex Couple’ Rights Grow Over Four Years (2013-2017), published by Centre for Comparative and Public Law at The Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong, shows that 50.4% of Hong Kong respondents accept same-sex marriage in 2017, a significant jump from 38% in 2013. ． Judgment in Case C-673/16 as per press release issued on 5 June 2018 by the European Union’s Court of Justice, rules in favour of same-sex couples’ rights to freedom of movement and residence. ． International trend moves towards supporting same-sex marriage as indicated by the above two examples. ． Press release issued on 17 November 2018 by the Government of the HKSAR reiterates its commitment to promoting equal opportunities for people of different sexual orientations and transgenders. ． The case shows Hong Kong’s justice system is in line with international trends towards same-sex marriage. ． The case sets a precedent on the benefits of the parties in a same-sex marriage are entitled to. 發展路向 ． 香港大學法律學院比較法及公法研究中心發布的 《香港市民過去四年（2013-2017年）對同性伴侶權 利的支持度有所提升》研究報告顯示，在2017年接 受同性婚姻的香港受訪者達50.4%，對比2013年的 38%，升幅顯著。 ． 根據歐洲聯盟法院於2018年6月5日就案件C-673/16 判決發布的新聞稿，法院裁定同性配偶享有自由遷 徙和居住的權利。 ． 上述兩個例子顯示國際趨向接納同性婚姻。 ． 香港特區政府於2018年11月17日發布的新聞稿重 申，政府致力促進不同性傾向和跨性別人士的平等 機會。 ． 本個案顯示香港司法體系在同性婚姻立場上與國際 趨勢一致。 ． 本個案為同性婚姻中雙方有權享有的福利創立先例。 P.83 法律援助署五十周年紀念特刊