CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 septembre 2000

.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 22 September 2000 Yousef v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 33711/96 Decision 5.9.2000 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Father unable to have his paternity recognised after mother’s death: admissible In 1986, the applicant, an Egyptian national, arrived in the Netherlands where he met R., a Dutch national, with whom he had a child, S., the next year. He was appointed co-guardian of the child by the District Court, whilst the mother was guardian. The applicant moved in with R. and they lived together for a year before he went back to the Middle East until 1991. During that period, their contacts were limited to a few letters. R. contracted a terminal illness and, in 1993, she made a will in which she asked for the guardianship of S. to be transferred to her brother, H.R., after her death. In 1994, the applicant unsuccessfully instituted summary injunction proceedings before the Regional Court to obtain an order that R. give him permission to recognise S. In a supplementary will, R. expressed her wish that the applicant would not have access to their daughter once she had been placed in the family of her other brother, J.R., after her death. Following her death, the applicant asked the Registrar of births, deaths and marriages to draw up a deed of recognition of paternity and enter his name in the registry of births. The Registrar refused and the applicant lodged a request with the Regional Court, which dismissed the request, considering that it had not been established that there was family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal, holding that the explicit refusal of R. to consent to the applicant’s recognition of S. had not ceased with her death, as she had stated it in her will. The court found that the ties between the applicant on the one hand and R. and S. were too loose to be regarded as constituting family life. Even considering family life existed, the interests of the child had to be taken into account and these demanded that she grow up in the family where she had been placed after her mother’s death. The applicant’s appeal in cassation was rejected by the Supreme Court. Admissible under Article 8.   © 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