CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 juin 2002

.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 43 June 2002 Lück v. Germany (dec.) - 58364/00 Decision 13.6.2002 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Natural father’s right of access to his child, born of an adulterous relationship and regarded as the legitimate child of a married couple: admissible Article 14 Discrimination Sex Alleged discrimination against natural father as regards his right of access to his child: admissible The applicant is the natural father of L., born in 1989. L.’s mother was married at the time of the child’s birth and still is. In 1991, she began to limit contact between the child and the applicant, and prohibited all contact between them starting in March 1993. The applicant brought an action in the competent district court asking that the child’s mother and her husband be obliged to grant him access. In January 1994, the court dismissed this request, pointing out that no such right of access was provided for under the law because the child was considered as having been born of the mother’s marriage to her husband. In September 1995, without holding a hearing, the regional court upheld the lower court’s decision, noting in particular that the applicant’s request amounted to interference with the life of an existing family. It held that, as the case stood, there was no reason either to give the child a hearing or to request an expert opinion. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and the applicant’s application in July 1996 to the Federal Constitutional Court is still pending. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (public hearing, length of proceedings, access to a tribunal), and under Article 8 alone and in conjunction with Article 14.   © 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