Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
October 1998
Söderbäck v. Sweden - 24484/94
Judgment 28.10.1998
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Adoption of a child granted to mother's husband, without the consent of the natural father: no violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
Not disputed that there existed certain ties between the applicant father and his daughter M. – in the light of this, and bearing in mind that the parties’ arguments centred on issue of compliance with Article 8, the Court proposed to proceed on the basis that it was applicable – on this assumption, the adoption order amounted to an interference with his right to respect for family life under Article 8 § 1.
Not doubted that adoption “in accordance with the law” and pursued legitimate aim of protecting child's rights and freedoms – it remained to be considered whether it was “necessary in a democratic society”.
While adoption in the present case, like the contested measures in the Johansen v. Norway case, had the legal effect of totally depriving the applicant of family life with his daughter, the context differed significantly – accordingly, it was inappropriate in the present case to apply the approach employed in the Johansen judgment.
Furthermore, during the period under consideration, the contacts between the applicant and the child had been infrequent and limited in character and when the adoption was granted he had not seen her for quite some time.
Moreover, when the adoption was granted by the District Court in December 1989, de facto family ties had existed between the mother and the adoptive father for five and a half years, until they married in January 1989, and between him and M. for six and a half years – the adoption had consolidated and formalised those ties.
Against this background, the decision fell within the margin of appreciation – given the aims sought to be achieved by allowing the adoption to go ahead, it could not be said that adverse effects on applicant’s relations with the child had been disproportionate.
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