Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:36:09.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Protection Under Article 8 ECHR: Marckx and Beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Caroline J. Forder
Get access

Extract

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is founded upon certain values and institutions common to the legal systems of all the Contracting States. In the absence of such common values and institutions the attempt to create generally applicable guidelines for the balancing of the rights of individuals against the general interest will run into difficulties.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , August 1990 , pp. 162 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Teichmann, J., Illegitimacy: A Philosophical Study (1982) p. 80Google Scholar.

2. The Brussels Convention of 12 September 1962 on the Establishment of Maternal Affiliation of Natural Children, and the European Convention of 15 October 1975 on the Legal Position of Children born Outside Wedlock.

3. Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31.

4. Meulders-Klein, M. T., ‘Cohabitation and Children in Europe”, 29 AJ Comp. Law (1981) p. 359 at p. 390CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Harris, D. J. in 50 BYIL (1979) pp. 260–264Google Scholar.

5. J. de Boer in FamRZ (1982) S. 1150. For comment on the compatibility of the rules with Grundgesetz Art. 6 II, see: von Münch, E.M., Grundgesetz Kommentar, 2nd edn. (1981) 1.2.A., S. 337Google Scholar . Note the doubts of Meulders-Klein as to whether the position of unmarried fathers in West Germany is compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR (1981), loc cit. n. 4, at p. 383.

20. ‘La Loi Condamnée: A propos de l'arrêt du 13 juin 1979 de la cour européenne des droits de l'homme’, 94 Journal des Tribuneaux (1979) p. 513 at p. 514.Google Scholar

21. ‘Das Straβburger Marckx-Urteil zum Recht des nichtehelichen Kindes und seine Folgen’, FamRZ (1982) S. 1150, adopting Rigaux's argument.

22. Supran. 3, p. 19 para. 41.

23. Judges Matscher, Bindschedler-Robert, Vilhjàlmsson, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice. Additionally Judges O'Donoghue and Pinheiro Farina dissented from the majority view that inheritance rights were protected by Article 8. Six judges dissented from the decision as to the remedy awarded under Art. 50.

24. Marckx, supra p. 37.

25. Furthermore, according to Italian law (Sturm, loc. cit. n. 19, fn. 38), but not according to Belgian law (Art. 57 Belgian Civil Code; Marckx, suprap. 8), the unrecognised child is not even encumbered with the mother's name.

26. Wiarda, , op.cit. n. 18, p. 11Google Scholar , referring particularly to Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice in Marckx.

27. Sturm, , loc.cit. n. 19, S. 1153.Google Scholar

28. E.g., Golder, 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, separate judgment of Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, pp. 52–54 para. 39.

29. For example, Golder is often cited on this point, although the statements in the case are inconclusive. The actual decision points to a preference for construing the treaty in the light of present-day conditions irrespective of intentions at the time that the treaty was signed.

30. Tyrer v. UK 25, April 1978, Series A no. 26 para. 31; Dudgeon v. UK 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45 pp. 23–24 para. 60; Rees, 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106 p. 19 para. 47; Lawless, 1 July 1961, Series A no. 3 pp. 51–53 para. 14; Drzemczewski, A.Z., European Human Rights Convention in Domestic Laws (1983) pp. 26–34Google Scholar ; Douglas, G., ‘The Family and the State under the European Convention on Human Rights’, 2 Int. J of Law and the Family (1988) pp. 76–105 at p. 78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7 p. 23 para. 8. See also Wiarda, , op.cit. n. 18, p. 12.Google Scholar

32. Judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112 p. 24 para. 53.

33. Johnstone, supra p. 25, para. 53; and see the report of the Commission at p. 44, paras. 97–101.

34. From 12 September 1962. In force since 23 April 1964. Signatories: West Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Turkey, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg (ratified, at the date of the Marckx case, by: West Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Turkey).

35. From 15 October 1975. In force since 11 August 1978 (ratified, at the date of the Marckx case, by: Denmark, the United Kingdom, Norway, Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, Cyprus. Since ratified by Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Luxembourg; ‘International Instruments Relating to Human Rights“, at 1.1.1989', HRLJ (1989)).

36. Marckx, supra, p. 19 para. 41.

37. Sturm, , loc.cit. n. 19, S. 1153Google Scholar , Belgium had signed but not ratified the 1962 Convention, and neither signed nor ratified the 1975 Convention.

38. Young, James and Webster, 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44 para. 63; see also (in the context of Art. 10) Handyside, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24 para. 49; Lingens, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103 para. 41.

39. Marckx, supra p. 36 and p. 43 para. 8.

40. Marckx, supra p. 55.

41. Thus necessitating the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Acts of 1938 and 1975. And see the International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law, Vol. V. (Ferid, M.)Google Scholar.

42. Marckx, supra para. 38.

43. Marckx, supra para. 36.

44. The reasoning of Judge Thor Vilhjàlmsson strongly suggests that in such a case there is no infringement of the Convention; Marckx, supra p. 36.

45. Marckx, suprapara. 58.

46. It is interesting to note that, when considering whether Art. 8 in conjunction with Art. 14 was breached by the facts raised in the Johnstone case, the Court refused to separate the issue of non-availability of divorce from the freedom to marry, Johnstone, supra p. 24 para. 50.

47. Marckx, supra, Fitzmaurice's separate opinion, p. 43 para. 9.

48. See references at n. 10 supra.

49. Marckx, supra para. 31. The relevant passage is quoted at n. 71 infra.

50. Connolly, A.M., ‘Problems of Interpretation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, 35 ICLQ (1986) pp. 567–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar, see especially pp. 572–575 and 577.

51. It must be pointed out that the contrary view is held by Boer, J. de., loc cit. n. 5, pp. 24–25Google Scholar para. 7.1, who relies upon the statement in Rees, 17 October 1986, Series A, no. 106, p. 15, para. 37, which is quoted and discussed below, and a similar statement in Gaskin,7 July 1989, Series A no. 160 p. 17 para. 42 as evidence of an intention by the Court that Art. 8(2) should apply to positive obligations by analogy with negative ones.

52. 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106 p. 15 para. 37.

53. See Connolly, , loc. cit. n. 50, p. 572Google Scholar. See also Johnstone, supra, citing Rees, supra, p. 15 para. 37, which cites Marckx, supra, p. 15 para. 31.

54. Connolly, , loc. cit. n. 50, pp. 556–557Google Scholar.

55. Notice that this could present problems for East Germany if it seeks to accede to the ECHR, because East German law refuses to enforce access against the wishes of the custodial parent. This point remains of significance, notwithstanding the unification of Germany, because family law is one of the few remnants of East German law which will be permitted to survive, albeit on a transitional basis.

56. Hendriks v. Netherlands (1983) 5 EHRR 223; 9018/80 v. Netherlands (1984) 6 EHRR 133; 9497/81 v. Germany (1984) EHRR 119; 9843/82 v. U. K (1983) 5 EHRR 488; Garcia v. Switzerland 42 D&R 98; Erikson v. Sweden, 22 June 1988, Series A no. 156.

57. Abdulaziz, Balkandali and Cabales, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94 p. 34 para. 68.

58. Connolly, , loc. cit. n. 50, pp. 590–591Google Scholar.

59. Abdulaziz et al, supra p. 34 para. 67.

60. Abdulaziz, supra p. 47 para. 1.

61. Boer, De, loc cit. n. 5, p. 24Google Scholar, comparing HR 4 May 1984, NJ 1985, 510 with HR 21 March 1986, NJ 1986, 585.

62. Sporrong & Llonröth, 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52 p. 26 para. 69; James, 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98 p. 34 para. 50.

63. Rees, 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106 p. 15 para. 37. See also Gaskin,7 July 1989, Series A no. 160 para. 42.

64. Connolly, , loc. cit. n. 50, p. 572Google Scholar.

65. See, e. g., X and Y v. Netherlands, 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91 p. 13 para. 27 in which the Court refused to allow the Netherlands a margin of appreciation in its choice of the sanctions which should protect mentally handicapped children from physical assault. Holding that civil law sanctions were insufficient, the Court said ‘Effective deterrence is indispensable in this area and it can only be achieved by criminal law provisions; indeed it is by such provisions that the matter is normally regulated’. See also the Sunday Times case, 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30 (on Art. 10(2)).

66 Judgment of 18th December 1986, Series A no. 112 p. 31 para. 77.

67. Abdulaziz, supra p. 33 para. 67.

68. As to which Connolly was also somewhat perplexed, see Connolly, , loc cit. n. 50, p. 585Google Scholar.

69. See, e. g., Meulders-Klein, loc. cit. n. 4; Maidment, loc cit. n. 17.

70. Sunday Times case, 27 October 1978, Series A no. 30 p. 36 para. 59; Dudgeon, 30 January 1981, Series A no. 45 p. 21 para. 52; Gillow, 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109 p. 22 para. 55. (The notion of necessity implies a pressing social need; in particular, the measure employed must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The scope of the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities will depend not only on the nature of the aim of the restriction but also on the nature of the right involved.)

71. Marckx, supra p. 15 para. 31.

72. A similar type of reasoning was used in Airey,9 October 1979, Series A no. 32 to hold that a right to a fair hearing could, in certain cases, include the right to be given legal aid.

73. Wortmann, S. F. M., ‘Mensenrechten in het personen- en familierecht’, 11 NJCM Bulletin (1986) no. 2 pp. 111–137Google Scholar. See especially p. 116.

74. See Wortmann, ibid. pp. 121 en 123.

75. Marckx, supra, see quotation above.

76. Wortmann, , loc.cit. n. 73, pp. 116 and 121Google Scholar. Douglas, loc cit. n. 30 is of the same opinion, see p. 90. See Application no. 3100/67, Coll. 77.

77. Wortmann, , loc.cit. n. 73, pp. 112–113Google Scholar and fnn. 4 and 5; Connolly, loc. cit. n. 50, fn. 41; Hendriks v. The Netherlands, 29 D & R 5.

78. Wortmann, , loc.cit. n. 73, fn. 41 and pp. 125–126Google Scholar, argues that they should be in the same legal position as divorced parents.

79. See, for example, Lowe, N. and Douglas, G.: ‘The Grandparent-Grandchild Relationship in English Law’, in Eekelaar, J. and Pearl, D., eds., An Ageing World: Dilemmas and Challenges for Law and Social Policy (1989) pp. 755–774Google Scholar; Application No. 8924/80,24 D & R 183; and in Marckx itself the failure to provide for links with the maternal grandparents was held to breach Art. 8, at paras. 45–47.