MARCKX CASE
Doc ref: 6833/74 • ECHR ID: 001-55447
Document date: March 4, 1988
- Inbound citations: 7
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in
the Marckx case, delivered on 13 June 1979 and transmitted the same
day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application against the
Kingdom of Belgium lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights
on 29 March 1974 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the convention by
Ms Paula Marckx, acting on behalf of herself and of her infant
daughter Alexandra, who complained of the provisions of the Belgian
Civil Code on the manner of establishing the maternal affiliation of
an "illegitimate" child and on the effects of establishing such
affiliation as regards both the extent of the child's family
relationships and the patrimonial rights of the child and of its
mother, as well as of the necessity for the mother to adopt the child
if she wished to increase its rights;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission
on 10 March 1978;
Whereas in its judgment of 13 June 1979 the Court:
on the manner of establishing Alexandra Marckx's maternal affiliation
- held by ten votes to five that there had been a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8) of the convention, taken alone, with respect to
Paula Marckx;
- held by eleven votes to four that there had also been a breach of
Article 14 of the convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8
(art. 14+8), with respect to this applicant;
- held by twelve votes to three that there had been a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8) of the convention, taken alone, with respect to
Alexandra Marckx;
- held by thirteen votes to two that there had also been a breach
of Article 14 of the convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8
(art. 14+8), with respect to this applicant;
on the extent in law of Alexandra Marckx's family relationships
- held by twelve votes to three that there was a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8) of the convention, taken alone, with respect to
both applicants;
- held by thirteen votes to two that there was also a breach of
Article 14 of the convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8
(art. 14+8), with respect to both applicants;
on the patrimonial rights relied on by Alexandra Marckx
- held unanimously that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)
was not applicable to Alexandra Marckx's claims;
- held unanimously that there had been no breach of Article 8
(art. 8) of the convention, taken alone, with respect to this applicant;
- held by thirteen votes to two that there was a breach of
Article 14 of the convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8
(art. 14+8), with respect to the same applicant;
on the patrimonial rights relied on by Paula Marckx
- held unanimously that there had been no breach of Article 8
(art. 8) of the convention, taken alone, with respect to Paula Marckx;
- held by thirteen votes to two that there had been a breach of
Article 14 of the convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8
(art. 14+8) with respect to this applicant;
- held by ten votes to five that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-1) was applicable to Paula Marckx's claims;
- held by nine votes to six that there had been no breach of this
Article (P1-1), taken alone, with respect to the same applicant;
- held by ten votes to five that there had been a breach of
Article 14 of the convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-1), with respect to this applicant;
on the alleged violation of Articles 3 and 12 (art. 3, art. 12)
of the convention
- held unanimously that there was no breach of Article 3 or of
Article 12 (art. 3, art. 12) of the convention in the present case;
on Article 50 (art. 50)
- held by nine votes to six that the preceding findings amounted in
themselves to adequate just satisfaction for the purposes of
Article 50 (art. 50) of the convention;
Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54
(art. 54) of the convention";
Having invited the Government of Belgium to inform it of the measures
which had been taken in consequence of the judgment, having regard to
its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the convention to abide
by it;
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of
Ministers, the Government of Belgium gave the Committee information
about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which
information appears in the appendix to this resolution,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the
Government of Belgium, that it has exercised its functions under
Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (88) 3
Information provided by the Government of Belgium during the
examination of the Marckx case by the Committee of Ministers
The Act of 31 March 1987 amending various legal provisions concerning
affiliation (published in the Moniteur Belge on 27 May 1987) brings
Belgian legislation into compliance with the convention as interpreted
by the European Court of Human Rights in the Marckx case.
The following provisions of the Act address the violations of the
convention found in this case:
- as regards the violations concerning the manner of establishing
maternal affiliation; Article 38 of the Act of 31 March 1987 has
replaced Part VII (Sections 312 to 342.b) of Book I of the Civil Code.
Paragraph 1 of the new Section 312 provides that a child's mother is
the person so designated in its birth certificate;
Voluntary recognition by the mother is henceforth no longer necessary;
- as regards the violations concerning the extent in law of the
family and patrimonial rights; the new Section 334 lays down the
general principle of the equality of the different methods of
affiliation;
- Sections 66 to 74 of the Act of 31 March 1987 have amended the
provisions of Book III, Part I, of the Civil Code: "The law of
inheritance".
The adoption of these new provisions involved the repeal of Sections
756 to 766 of the Civil Code, which instituted a discrimination
concerning the inheritance rights of illegitimate children.