CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 avril 1997

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. April 1997 X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom - 21830/93 Judgment 22.4.1997 [GC] Article 8 Positive obligations Article 8-1 Respect for family life Refusal to register post-operative transsexual as father of child born to partner by artificial insemination by donor: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Existence of "family life" Notion of "family life" not confined solely to families based on marriage – factors such as cohabitation and length of relationship of relevance. X lived with Y, to all appearances as her male partner, since 1979 and was associated in treatment leading to artificial insemination by donor ("AID"). Conclusion : Article 8 applicable (unanimously). B.   Compliance with Article 8 Wide margin of appreciation since no common European standard with regard to granting of parental rights to transsexuals or manner in which social relationship between child conceived by AID and person performing social role of father should be reflected in law. Community has interest in maintaining coherent system of family law prioritising best interests of child – unclear whether amendment sought would benefit children conceived by AID or have implications in other areas of family law – in these circumstances State may justifiably be cautious in changing law. Disadvantages suffered by applicants do not outweigh general interest given facts of case, in particular that X not prevented from acting as Z's father in social sense and could, with Y, apply for joint residence order in respect of her. Conclusion: no violation (fourteen votes to six). II.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 8 Article 14 complaint tantamount to restatement of Article 8 complaint – no need to re-examine issues. Conclusion : not necessary to consider complaint (seventeen votes to three).   © 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