Tutorial 1
Is family law really law?
Yes, it is. For example, we can legally marry on the legal base of the civil code. In the common law
countries (in the UK for example) it will regulate family law in case law.
Why is family law so different from other parts of civil law, like contract law?
You touch people in their private life, it is very personal and decides who we really are and what our
identity is. Also is it very cultural sensitive. Every country has different rules regarding family matters
because of its culture or sovereignty of the state.
To whom is family law addressed?
Parents, children, inheritors (erfgenamen), but it also matters for tax or for the state (if you die and you
have no inheritors, all your property will be given to the state). Besides, it is relevant for the public
society because it is so cultural: in some countries gay marriage is not recognized because it is
against the public moral.
What are the aims and objectives behind the European regulation of family law.
One of the key pillars of European Union is the free movement of persons, so people fall in love in
other countries and that has to be regulated by European law. Problem is that every country has their
own law and vision on family law (because of the culture). The aim of European regulation of family is
coming up with rules about which jurisdiction is applicable in each and every case.
These European regulations started after WW2 because Europe wanted to protect a minimum level of
human rights, so also minimum protection of family law. Even though there were tons of differences on
this topic between all countries, the European court of human rights would give a minimum level of
protection for family law
4. What is the relationship between The Hague Conference, the EU and the Council of Europe
in the field of family law?
The relationship is private international law. Member states are individually part of these institutions.
1. The EU is nowadays part of the Hague Conference because they recognized it.
2. The EU is a different organization because it is a supranational and economic organization.
They can also come up with international private law.
3. The Council of Europe is setting minimum standards.
5. Do the judgments of the ECHR have erga omnes effect?
The EU convention gives a minimal standard, but if countries want to protect their citizens even more,
they are free to do that. The case law is binding for the states. The European Court of Human Rights is
not an EU institution so they have no enforcement power, it is all based on trust because everyone
willingly joined it.
(The European Council is an EU institution and do have the enforcement power. Don’t mess it up with
the council of Europe! This is not an EU institution and has no enforcement power).
The ECHR gives a minimal standard and if a country violates the convention, it is not up to the ECHR
to change the law for that country. The country have the change the law itself! This is called the
subsidiarity principle.
6. What is meant by the ‘’right to respect for private and family life’’ (article 8 EVRM)?
It means positive and negative obligations.
Negative obligations mean that the state should not interfere in the private life of its citizens.
Positive obligations mean that the state actively makes sure that its citizens will be protected.
In the beginning it was formulated in a negative way, because the law was formulated right after World
War 2. Therefor they wanted the state not to interfere in the private life of citizens.
The positive aspect was added after the Marckx-Belgium case!
Art. 8 EVRM
The state can interfere, but first of all in accordance with the law.
Secondly an interference has to be necessary in a democratic society (in the case of national security,
,public safety, etc.). here lies the proportionality.
The court will look if the interference is justified or not.
The first thing the court has to decide:
1. Is this a matter of private family life and does is fall under the score of article 8?
2. Is there a violation of the family life? Therefore we have to look at two questions:
a. Was there an interference?
b. Was the interference justified? (and if so, what is the legitimate aim in paragraph 2
national security, public safety, etc.)
If not, article 8 EVRM is violated.
Marckx/Belgium (ECHR)
Ms. Paula Marckx, being unmarried, gave birth to a daughter in 1973. Under Belgian law, no legal
bond between an unmarried mother and her child resulted from the mere fact of birth. To create the
bond, the mother had either to recognise maternity in specific proceedings or to adopt the child. In
both cases, the child's inheritance rights remained less than those a child born in marriage received
automatically.
Moeder Paula werd niet automatisch erkend als legal mother, nu haar kind niet uit een huwelijk was
geboren. Kind werd om die reden (volgens de wet) geboren als orphin, zonder ouders dus. Aangezien
Paula niet automatisch werd erkend al moeder, moest ze het kind op eigen initiatief erkennen. Dat
deed ze 11 dagen na de geboorte en daarmee werd ze niet alleen een biological mother maar ook een
legal mother. Alsnog werd het kind gezien als een illegitemate child (onwettig), aangezien haar
moeder een kind heeft gekregen buiten het huwelijk, en dus kreeg het kind minder rechten dan een
kind dat binnen een huwelijk wordt geboren (en dus automatisch wordt erkend). Dit resulteerde in het
feit dat Alexandra geen recht had om iets te kunnen erven. Haar hoedanigheid als erfgenaam is in alle
gevallen uitgesloten. Als moeder zijnde moest je dus een moeilijke keuze maken: je wordt ofwel
erkend als moeder, maar dan zal je kind niks kunnen erven.
Om toch te zorgen dat haar kind zou kunnen erven, moest Paula haar eigen kind adopteren (in order
to make her legitimate). Adoptie maakt van het kind een legitamite (wettig) kind, wat met zich
meebrengt dat Alexandra nu kan erven. Echter kan zij alléén van haar moeder erven, want er is alleen
een formal family thigh met haar moeder en niet met haar tante of oma. Dit heeft ermee te maken dat
de familiebanden bij adoptie normaalgesproken worden afgekapt en dus ook in dit geval (omdat in een
normaal geval nooit een eigen kind zou worden geadopteerd).
Now mother Paula got to the Court. The fact that I have to recognize my own biological child is on
itself an infringement (inbreuk op een recht). Secondly, we have to fight to make the child legetimate
and even if she is legetimate, she has less rights than other children because even after the adoption
there were no inheritance rights like ‘’normal child’’ have. This makes it discriminatory so there is a
violation of art. 14 and article 8.
Article 14 (no discriminitation) has always be in conjuction with another article, so in this case in
conjuction with article 8 (family life)
The State
1. De Belgische staat had verschillende redenen om een moeder van een kind buiten huwelijk
niet automatisch te erkennen, namelijk: we want to protect traditional family values (stimulate
marriage) and protect legitamte families.
2. Daarnaast zei de Belgische staat ook dat 25% van de kinderen die buiten een huwelijk
worden geboren, niet worden erkend. Dat kan er volgens de Staat mee te maken hebben dat
zij de kinderen niet willen. Binnen een huwelijk kies je er immers voor, zie ad 1. Echter gaat
het om zó’n groot percentage dat het waarschijnlijk is dat alle ongehuwde moeders (25%) die
hun kind niet erkennen, simpelweg niet weten dat ze dit moeten doen of hun kind het erfrecht
niet willen ontnemen.
, Ad 1 (p. 14 of the case). 39. The Government, relying on the difference between the situations of the
unmarried and the married mother, advance the following arguments: whilst the married mother and
her husband "mutually undertake ... the obligation to feed, keep and educate their children" (Article
203 of the Civil Code), there is no certainty that the unmarried mother will be willing to bear on her own
the responsibilities of motherhood; by leaving the unmarried mother the choice between recognising
her child or dissociating herself from him, the law is prompted by a concern for protection of the child,
for it would be dangerous to entrust him to the custody and authority of someone who has shown no
inclination to care for him; many unmarried mothers do not recognise their child (see paragraph 14
above).
So now it is to the court. The court will look if article 8 was violated
1. Is this a matter of private family life and does is fall under the score of article 8?
i. Yes, there are family thighs and there is relationship between the mother and
the child.
2. Is there a violation of the family life? Therefore we have to look at two questions:
a. Was there an interference? (storing ofwel inmenging)
i. Yes, there was an interference. First of all Paula has the cross the whole
country to be recognized as a legal mother. Secondly, she has not the same
rights as other children and has to fight for the same rights.
b. Was the interference justified? (and if so, what is the legitimate aim in paragraph 2
national security, public safety, etc.)
i. The Belgian state said that they wanted to protect the public morals.
The court did not agree with the Belgian state, so there was a violation of article 8. The reasoning of
the court was not only that there was a negative obligation, but also a positive obligation that your
citizens could enjoy quiet of their right of family life.
The court said about the margin of appreciation: there was a growing consensus among European
states that every biological mother was automatically recognized as a legal mother and Belgium was
lacking behind. If the margin of appreciation is wide, then the states have more room to give their own
interpretation. Because of the great consensus among states, the margin of appreciation had become
narrow and the State has the obligation to make no distinction between children of a married mother or
an unmarried mother.
Conclusie:
Het arrest Marckx stelde vast dat de toenmalige Belgische wet een onderscheid maakt
tussen wettige kinderen en natuurlijke kinderen.
Moeder deed een poging om elke discriminatie af te schaffen tussen kinderen, ongeacht of ze
binnen dan wel buiten het huwelijk zijn geboren.
Het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens gaf haar gelijk en oordeelde in 1979 dat de
Belgische Staat een einde moest maken aan de discriminatie tussen wat men vroeger
natuurlijke en wettige kinderen noemde.
Judgment
The Court held that there had been breaches of:
Article 8 EVRM (private and family life)
Article 14 EVRM (non-discrimination), taken in conjunction with Article 8 EVRM
Article 14 EVRM, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (property rights),
