Information Note on the Court’s case-law 60

January 2004

Haas v. the Netherlands - 36983/97

Judgment 13.1.2004 [Section II]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for family life

Refusal of courts to establish biological paternity of an illegitimate child and restriction of his inheritance rights: Articles 8 and 14 inapplicable

Facts: The applicant was born out of wedlock from a relationship between his mother and P., w ho never recognised the applicant as his son. P. nonetheless made payments to the applicant’s mother on a regular basis and spent time with both of them, going out on day trips and offering the applicant presents. The applicant alleged that he called him “ daddy”. P. died intestate and K., his nephew and only heir, inherited his estate. The applicant instituted proceedings against K. to obtain P.’s estate. Firstly, he claimed that family ties within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention existed between him and the deceased, who he asserted to be his biological father. Secondly, he contended that Dutch law created a difference of treatment between illegitimate and legitimate children, which was contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. The Regional Court rejected his claim, considering that legal certainty required that only persons with a demonstrable legal family connection with the deceased should be able to inherit. The court found that any hypothetical interference with the applicant’s family life was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society. Consequently, it deemed it unnecessary to establish whether P. was actually the applicant’s biological father as he alleged. The applicant’s appeals were unsuccessful, the Supreme Court fin ding that although an inability to inherit based solely on the ground of illegitimacy would be contrary to Article 8 and 14, there could be other objective grounds to restrict inheritance by “illegitimate” children, and recalled that Parliament was conside ring a reform of legislation in this area.

Law: Articles 8 and 14 (taken together) – The applicant’s sporadic contacts with P. could not be construed as “family life”. Moreover, the applicant had never, prior to the proceedings he instituted to inherit fr om P., sought to obtain recognition as his son or to form part of his family in terms of emotional security. As a result, the facts of the case could not be accommodated within the ambit of Article 8. The issue before the national courts had not been one o f “family life”, but rather one of evidence on whether the applicant’s ties with the deceased should have been recognised. The Court noted that as new legislation in this area has been adopted in the Netherlands, the possibility was now open for the applic ant to seek a declaration of paternity.

Conclusion : Articles 8 and 14 not applicable (unanimously).

© 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