Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

Wolff Metternich v. the Netherlands (dec.)

Doc ref: 45908/99 • ECHR ID: 002-6380

Document date: May 18, 1999

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

Wolff Metternich v. the Netherlands (dec.)

Doc ref: 45908/99 • ECHR ID: 002-6380

Document date: May 18, 1999

Cited paragraphs only

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 6

May 1999

Wolff Metternich v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 45908/99

Decision 18.5.1999 [Section I]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Applicant claiming right to be included in the ancestry register, conferring entitlement to hold a title of nobility: inadmissible

The family of the applicant’s mother belongs to the Dutch nobility and i s entitled to hold the noble title of Count ( Graaf ). The family of the applicant’s father, however, does not belong to the Dutch nobility. Following his parents’ divorce, the applicant officially changed his family name to his mother’s maiden name. He then requested the authorities to include him in the Netherlands ancestry register, so as to be entitled to hold the noble title of Graaf . His request, as well as his appeals, were rejected on the ground that Dutch nobility was only transferred through the pat ernal line.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: According to the Dutch Act on Nobility, noble status can be obtained in only three ways, i.e. at birth, by transmission via the paternal line;  by elevation of a person belonging to the royal family;  or by inc orporation where a foreign person holding a noble status recognised in the country of origin obtains Dutch nationality. The applicant did not belong to any of these categories. The absence of any discretion in the applicable domestic statutory rules as to the enoblement of persons not being part of these three categories showed that no right was recognised in Dutch law. Therefore, the applicant’s claim did not concern a “right” which could arguably be said to be recognised in the Netherlands and could not b e regarded as falling within the scope of Article 6: incompatible ratione materiae .

© 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

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846