CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juin 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 65 June 2004 L. v. the Netherlands - 45582/99 Judgment 1.6.2004 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Refusal to grant a father access to his daughter, whom he had not legally recognised: violation Facts : The applicant’s daughter was born out of wedlock from his relationship with the mother of the child, which had lasted three years. Following the child’s birth, the courts appointed the mother as guardian and the applicant as auxiliary guardian (the applicant’s function ended when that institution was abolished by law). Although the couple did not cohabit, the applicant visited the mother and child on a regular basis. The applicant never formally recognised his daughter or sought judicial consent to overcome the mother’s objection to such recognition. Once the applicant’s relationship with the mother had broken down, he requested the courts to grant him access to his daughter. The request was declared admissible in first-instance proceedings subject to a report to be prepared by the Child Care authorities on the feasibility of an access arrangement. The decision was subsequently quashed by the Court of Appeal, which found that the applicant had insufficiently established that he had a close personal relationship with the child or that there was a link between them that could be regarded as “family life”. The Supreme Court accepted these findings, holding that “family life” for the purposes of Article 8 implied the existence of further personal ties in addition to biological paternity.    Law : Article 8 – Mere biological kinship, without any further legal or factual elements indicating the existence of a close personal relationship between parent and child, should not be regarded as sufficient to attract the protection of Article 8. As the applicant had never sought to recognise his daughter or cohabited with the mother and child, he had never formed a “family unit” with them.   However, the child had been born out of a genuine relationship between the applicant and the mother, and he had acted as his daughter’s auxiliary guardian until that institution had been abolished. The applicant visited them both at unspecified regular intervals, and discussed the child’s health problems with the mother on several occasions. In these circumstances, when the applicant’s relationship with the mother ended, there existed – in addition to biological kinship – certain ties between the applicant and his daughter which were sufficient to attract the protection of Article 8. Thus, the decision of the courts to declare the applicant’s request for access to his daughter inadmissible on the ground that there was no family life between them was in breach of his rights under Article 8. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one) Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © 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