Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 136
December 2010
Chavdarov v. Bulgaria - 3465/03
Judgment 21.12.2010 [Section V]
Article 8
Positive obligations
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Inability of biological father to establish in law his paternity of children born to a married woman with whom he had been cohabiting: no violation
Facts – In 1989 the applicant set up home with a married woman (who was living separately from her husband); she gave birth to three children, in 1990, 1995 and 1998, while they were living together. The woman’s husband was named as the children’s father on their birth certificates and the children were given his surname. At the end of 2002 the woman left the applicant and the children in order to set up home with another partner. Since then the applicant has lived with the three children. At the beginning of 2003 he consulted a lawyer with a view to bringing proceedings for recognition of paternity. However, the lawyer informed him that domestic law did not enable him to challenge the presumption of paternity in respect of his former companion’s husband. In consequence, the applicant applied directly to the European Court.
Law – Article 8
(a) Existence of a family life – The thirteen years during which the applicant and his former companion had cohabited (1989-2002) and the birth of the three children during that period indicated that this was indeed a de facto family unit, in which the applicant had been able to develop emotional ties with the children. His attachment to them was also evident from the rapid steps taken by him following the separation with a view to overcoming the lack of any formal family ties between himself and the children, and from the fact that the children had apparently lived with him since the separation. It was therefore appropriate to consider that the ties between the applicant and the three children whose biological father he claimed to be did indeed amount to “family life” within the meaning of the Convention.
(b) Positive obligations – The States enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation in regulating paternal filiation, an area in which various moral, ethical, social or religious considerations applied. The data on twenty-four States Parties to the Convention indicated that there was no consensus on whether domestic legislation should enable the biological father to contest the presumption of a husband’s paternity. In the instant case, the existence of the de facto single-parent family formed by the applicant and the three children had not been threatened at any point, by the authorities, the mother or the latter’s husband. Although the applicant was unable to bring an action to challenge the three children’s paternal filiation, domestic legislation did not deprive him of any possibility of establishing a paternal link in their respect or of overcoming the practical disadvantages posed by the absence of such a link. In particular, he could have applied to adopt the children, or asked the social services to have them placed under his responsibility as a close relative of abandoned underage children. Since the applicant had not shown that he had availed himself of those possibilities, the State authorities could not be held responsible for the applicant’s own passivity. Respect for the children’s legitimate interests had also been secured by the domestic legislation. Accordingly, the fair balance between the interest of society and that of the individuals concerned had not been breached in this case.
Conclusion: no violation (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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy