到通过英国内政部被介绍的婚姻法律的变化是被 Justice Silber 先生推倒了，在伦敦在高级法院坐。法官断言规则在人权上以欧洲的惯例不和谐的。
婚姻法律被介绍给钳子下面在回避移民入境的“权宜婚姻”在他们能够在英国结婚以前控制和需要移民弄到同意，或者 COA 的一份特别的证书。
规则介绍 2005 年 2 月，在欧盟外面出生的平均的人和在英国有仅仅 6 个月的停留的一些接邻欧洲的民族，从内政部必须寻找特殊许可证跟结婚，不考虑他们的合伙人的状况中。
规则不适用于英格兰成员的教堂，即便他们非合法地在英国。
针对在宗教的地上的移民对由于不公平的区别的婚姻法律的翻倒留下门敞开成百人从海外在英国结婚。
判例案件涉及在通过 Justice Silber 先生翻倒方面，涉及来自阿尔及利亚和 EEA 国民的外国国民谁合法地在住在英国。一旦来自波兰的 Mahmaud Baiai 和 Izabella Trzanska 被拒绝结婚的允许，他们发动挑战。
Justice Silber 先生说被提出的案例发行在文章下面在保护结婚和建立一个家庭的权利的人权上的 12 个欧洲的大会。
“规则是不和谐的因为他们歧视移民权力以宗教和国籍为理由以移民入境控制为条件，”他声明。
法官指出英国的婚姻不同地被对待，免除规则，因为步骤被带确保英格兰婚姻的教堂不是权宜婚姻。
他说其他信心，包括伊斯兰教和印度教，也其他信仰基督的教堂的命名采取措施确保婚姻不“假的。”
用于移民的律师主张政府在宗教的区别之中犯罪的和不合法地干扰全部的其中一个最基本权力，结婚的夫妇的权力当他们的关系是真正的时候和不是一件伪品。
“结婚的权利不依赖于居住国家的权利。充分的手段在合适的位置已经乃是与权宜婚姻，和本身的一个婚姻战斗保证住在英国的权利的没有什么东西，”法官说。
莫尼卡 Carss 快乐 QC，为内政部长出现，认为 COA 计划以冠词是既“成比例”又“协调”的 12 和甚么东西也不有固有令人不愉快或者非法在有助于一项有效的移民入境政策采用这样一个计划方面。
一位内政部发言人说部长会考虑一个呼吁，通过介绍被修订的指导方针将遵守裁决和暂停对通过内政部面对了拒绝的任何案例的决定。
由法官所作的裁决意味着部长向议会必须归还法律或者采取其他措施确认它公平的。









英 语 原 文


Changes to marriage laws introduced by the UK Home Office have been have been overturned by Mr Justice Silber, sitting at the High Court in London. The judge declared the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The marriage laws were introduced to clamp down on "marriages of convenience" to get around immigration controls and require immigrants to obtain a special certificate of approval, or COA before they can wed in the UK.
The rules introduced February 2005, mean people born outside the EU and some bordering European nations who have only 6 months stay in the UK, must seek special permission from the Home Office to marry, irrespective of the status of their partner.
The rules do not apply to Church of England members, even if they are illegally in the UK.
The overturning of the marriage laws due to unfair discrimination against immigrants on religious grounds leaves the door open for hundreds of people from overseas getting married in the UK.
The test case involved in overturning by Mr Justice Silber, involved a foreign national from Algeria and an EEA national who was legally living in the UK. Once Mahmaud Baiai and Izabella Trzanska from Poland were refused permission to marry, they launched the challenge.
Mr Justice Silber said the case raised issues under Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to marry and found a family.
"The rules were incompatible because they discriminated against immigrants rights subject to immigration control on grounds of religion and nationality," he declared.
The judge pointed out that Anglican marriages were treated differently, and were exempt from the rule, because steps were taken to ensure Church of England marriages were not marriages of convenience.
He said other faiths, including Islam and Hinduism, and also other denominations of the Christian church took steps to ensure marriages were not "bogus."
Lawyers for immigrants argued the Government was guilty of religious discrimination and unlawfully interfering with one of the most fundamental rights of all, the rights of couples to marry when their relationships were genuine and not a sham.
"The right to marry is not dependent on the right to reside in the country. Adequate measures are already in place to combat marriages of convenience, and a marriage of itself did nothing to secure the right to live in the UK," said the judge.
Monica Carss-Frisk QC, appearing for the Home Secretary, contended that the COA scheme was both "proportionate and compatible" with Article 12 and there was nothing inherently objectionable or unlawful in adopting such a scheme in the interests of an effective immigration policy.
A Home Office spokesman said ministers would consider an appeal, and will comply with the ruling by introducing revised guidelines and suspend decisions on any cases that have faced rejection by the Home Office.
The ruling by the judge means ministers must return the law to parliament or take other steps to make sure it is fair.