CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 février 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 127 February 2010 Hofmann v. Germany (dec.) - 1289/09 Decision 23.2.2010 [Section V] Article 8 Claim for damages against a third party arising out of the death of the applicant’s fiancée:   Article 8 inapplicable; inadmissible   Facts – The applicant’s fiancée died in 2002 after giving birth to the couple’s second child by caesarean section. The applicant claimed damages from the gynaecologist who had performed the operation. In 2005 a regional court dismissed his claim on the grounds that, even though they raised their children together, the deceased had not been obliged by law to provide maintenance to the applicant, as such an obligation only arose between lineal relatives, spouses, former spouses following a divorce and partners of registered same-sex partnerships. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article   8: Family life did not consist only of social, moral or cultural relations, for example in the sphere of children’s education; it also comprised interests of a pecuniary nature. This was shown by, among other things, obligations in respect of maintenance and the institution of the reserved portion of an estate that existed in the domestic legal systems of the majority of the Contracting States. The Court observed, however, that it had never held that the notions of “family life” or “private life” covered a claim for damages against a third party. The cases concerning intestate succession or voluntary dispositions concerned the pecuniary aspects of existing family ties. The Court was of the opinion that the applicant’s claim for damages did not concern existing ties, including the pecuniary aspects thereof, between himself and his late fiancée. It only concerned his relationship with the respondent doctor. The latter relationship did not raise issues of “family life” within the meaning of Article   8 or an issue of “private life” seen in terms of personal identity. Article   8 was therefore not applicable in the instant case and Article   14 could not be relied on. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes