DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MULARONI

I disagree with the majority that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

The Court held that, as the applicant had never sought t o recognise the child and had never formed a “family unit” with A . and her mother as they ha d never cohabited, the question ar ose whether there were other factors demonstrating that the applica nt ’ s relationship with A . had sufficient constancy and substance to create de facto “family ties”, as mere kinship without any further legal or factual elements indicating the existence of a close personal relationship cannot be regarded as sufficient to attract the protection of Article 8 (see paragraph 37 of the judgment ).

On this point, I have noted that in the course of the domestic proceedings it was established that the applicant was present when A . was born on 14 April 1995 and that – from A . ’ s birth until August 1996 when his relation ship with A . ’ s mother ended – the applicant ’ s involvement with A . consisted in having visited her at unspecified regular intervals, having changed A . ’ s nappy a few times, having babysat her once or twice and in having had some contact with A . ’ s mother about the child ’ s impaired hearing.

I consider that, given the nature and degree of the applicant ’ s contacts with A . , the impugned decision to declare inadmissible the applicant ’ s request for access to A . on the basis of a finding that there was no family life between them does not disclose any appea rance of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.