This Article analyses, through the lens of comparative law, theOliari and others v. Italyjudgment, which was issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in July 2015. TheOliaricase is important for being the first judgment in which the ECtHR established the granting of legal “recognition and protection” to same-sex couples as a positive obligation for the Member States of the Council of Europe on the basis of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In order to understand the role of judicial bodies in the progressive protection of homosexual rights, this Article combines an analysis of European case law with the national perspective. As it concerns the supranational facet, the authors illustrateOliari's reasoning and situate the case in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. Elements of both continuity and innovation emerge from the analysis, as well as a relevant dimension of judicial dialogue supporting the incremental recognition of gay rights in Europe. As it concerns the national facet, this specific case was initially dealt with at the domestic level and was the object of judgment 138/2010 by the Italian Constitutional Court. The judgment is critically put into perspective through the examination of the jurisprudence of other European Constitutional Courts (France, Portugal and Spain) that were called on to decide similar cases in the same period. Therefore, the Article offers a comparative analysis of theOliarijudgment clarifying its relevance and speculating on the potential value of this case for the future recognition of the right to a “gay” family life in Europe.

A finales de 2016 el Tribunal Constitucional federal alemán tuvo que decidir un recurso individual que reivindicaba, para los ciudadanos de Baviera, la posibilidad de un referéndum independentista. Este artículo analiza la decisión del Tribunal, contextualizándola a la luz de la jurisprudencia previa, del contexto político y de la doctrina. Finalmente, propone unas reflexiones críticas en perspectiva comparada.At the end of 2016, the German Federal Constitutional Court issued a decision concerning an individual appeal claiming the possibility of an independentist referendum for the Bavarian population. This article analyzes the Court’s decision, contextualizing it in the light of previous jurisprudence, political context and scholarship. Finally, it offers critical reflections from a comparative perspective.

Este artículo analiza desde una perspectiva crítica y comparada la elaboración y ejecución de la doctrina de la sustitución por parte de la Corte Constitucional colombiana, partiendo de sus antecedentes e insertándola en el contexto del control de las reformas. Se centra en sus presupuestos y en la evolución en su utilización, haciendo hincapié en los casos sensibles, para situar al caso colombiano en el panorama comparado, investigando hasta qué punto este tiene el potencial de transformarse en un referente.