Permission has been granted for the Human Rights Commission to submit comments to the European Court of Human Rights in a case about same-sex marriage in Bermuda.

As a third party, the organisation is not entitled to directly show support for one side or the other but instead can provide broad or alternative information.

The British Government was earlier invited to respond after the court received complaints that cancelling legal recognition of same-sex marriages in Bermuda was in violation of international treaty commitments.

An HRC spokeswoman said last week: “The Human Rights Commission sought leave to participate as a third-party in the proceedings currently before the European Court of Human Rights, which has been accepted.

“The Human Rights Commission is preparing a submission to the ECHR.

“We will not make additional comments at this time.”

Seven applicants made a complaint to the court under Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights “about the revocation of the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Bermuda” owing to Section 53 of the Domestic Partnership Act 2018, which limited marriage to being between a man and a woman.

They, along with a Hamilton church, also complained of a violation under Article 9 “based on their belief in same-sex marriage and/or their desire to take part in legally recognised rites of marriage in accordance with their faith or philosophical or moral convictions”.

Article 9, which is about freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and Article 12, the right to marry, were to be read together with Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination.

Same-sex marriages in Bermuda were allowed in May 2017; deemed unlawful by the DPA, which came into effect in June 2018; permitted again in November 2018 after a Court of Appeal ruling; and again banned after a Privy Council decision on the legislation in March 2022.

Nicola Barker, of the University of Liverpool’s School of Law and Social Justice, told The Royal Gazettelast year that arguments about the DPA made in Bermuda courts and at the Privy Council were limited to provisions of the Constitution, which did not include the articles 12 and 14 rights.

The application to the European court, which is based in Strasbourg, France, was lodged in July 2022 and was “communicated” to Britain at the end of May, from which time the British Government had 16 weeks to submit observations.

A spokesman for the court told The Royal Gazette last month that “at the request of the respondent government, an extension was granted by the court to November 9”.

The ECHR’s press unit confirmed on Thursday that the Bermuda Human Rights Commission was granted permission to intervene in the case as a third party, and said the deadline for observations from the British Government remained in place.

A practice direction issued in March this year explained: “Third-party intervention under Article 36.2 of the convention is a procedural device whose chief purpose is to enable the court to become acquainted with the views of states and other persons who are not parties to a case before it on the issues raised by that case, and be presented with information or arguments which are broader than or different from those put forward by the parties.”

It said the role of third parties in these circumstances was to provide the court “as impartially and objectively as possible, legal or factual points capable of assisting it in resolving the matters in dispute before it on a more enlightened basis”.

The direction added: “In consequence, third parties are not entitled to express support directly for one or the other party, make requests as regards the procedures before the court, seek a remedy from the court, participate in friendly settlement negotiations between the parties or seek relinquishment of referral of a case to the Grand Chamber.”

Intervention by third parties is invited or granted by the court in such cases only when it is deemed to be in the interests of the proper administration of justice.

The practice direction said that leave is usually given only to submit written comments — oral submissions are allowed only in exceptional circumstances.

Information on the court’s website showed that applicants in the case included Roderick Ferguson, Julia Aidoo-Saltus, Peter Carpenter, Gabby Jackson, David Northcott and Wesley Methodist Church of Bermuda.

Two others were listed by initials only — DD and JP.

A court information paper explained: “The court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws.”

It added: “The court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.”