003-4781100-5821338

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 161 (2014)   05.06.2014   German courts were right not to accept claim by mother to have contact with   and information about the children she had given up for adoption   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of I.S. v. Germany (application no. 31021/08), which is not   final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:   no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on   Human Rights.   The case concerned a woman’s complaint of not being able to have regular contact and receive   information about her biological children who had been adopted by another couple.   The Court considered that by consenting to the adoption, Ms S. had knowingly given up all rights as   regards her biological children. The arrangements concerning her right to regularly receive   information about them had been based on a mere declaration of intent by the adoptive parents.   The German courts’ decision to favour the children’s interest in developing in their adoptive family   without disruption over the mother’s right to respect for her private life had therefore been   proportionate.   Principal facts   The applicant, I.S., is a German national who was born in 1962 and lives in Bielefeld (Germany).   Following an extramarital affair, Ms S., who already had two children at the time, gave birth to twin   daughters in April 2000. Feeling under pressure from her husband, and suffering from depression   and anxiety, she consented to having the children placed in foster care less than three weeks after   giving birth. In November 2000 she gave her formal consent to the children’s adoption in a deed   before a civil law notary. The document stated in particular that she was aware that her declaration   could not be revoked and that all kinship between her and the children would cease. A few days   after her declaration, Ms S. and the prospective adoptive parents agreed orally during a meeting at a   regional social authority that she would receive a report with photos of the children once a year. It is   disputed whether during the meeting they also agreed on any rules for regular contact between Ms   S. and the children.   In June 2001 the adoption was concluded by decision of the guardianship division of a district court.   The hearing record indicated, in particular, that a “half-open adoption was agreed on, which led to   the conclusion that the mother seeks contact with the twins.” It then noted, however, that the   arrangement between Ms S. and the youth office remained valid, namely that she was to receive   photos of the children once per year.   In April 2002, Ms S. brought court proceedings to have her consent to the adoption declared void,   arguing that the children’s biological father – whose identity she had not disclosed – had not given   his consent to it and that at the time she gave her consent she had been in a state of mental   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   disturbance and had been unduly influenced by the youth office. The district court dismissed her   claim, relying on a psychiatric opinion which concluded that, although suffering from a deep inner   conflict, Ms S. had been legally capable of making a decision on her own.   Ms S. did not appeal against that decision, but, in parallel, brought proceedings seeking the right to   regular contact with the children and to receive information about them, relying on the oral   agreement reached with the adoptive parents. Those claims were equally dismissed in decisions   eventually upheld by the court of appeal in January 2004. As regards her request for contact with   the children, the courts held in particular that she had lost her legal status as a parent as a result of   the adoption and, having cared for the children only for about two weeks, she had not created a   significant social and family relationship with the children. The Constitutional Court refused to admit   her constitutional complaint in December 2007.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Ms S. complained that the German courts’ decisions on contact and information with regard to her   children had breached her rights, in particular, under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family   life). She alleged that she had been promised a “half-open” adoption, entitling her to contact with   and information about the children, which had not been respected.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 June 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), President,   Angelika Nußberger (Germany),   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),   Ann Power-Forde (Ireland),   Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),   Helena Jäderblom (Sweden),   Aleš Pejchal (the Czech Republic),   and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Court confirmed that Ms S.’ claim fell within the scope of Article 8. While it might be disputed   whether her relationship with the children – biological kinship without any close personal ties –   constituted “family life”, that relationship in any event concerned an important part of her identity   as a biological mother and thus her “private life” within the meaning of Article 8.   The Court was satisfied that the German courts’ decisions had been “in accordance with the law” for   the purpose of Article 8. It noted that the relevant provisions of the Civil Code did not confer on   biological parents as such the right to have contact with their children. In their reading of those   provisions, the German courts had examined – following the case-law of the Federal Constitutional   Court – whether a “social and family relationship” between the twins and Ms S. had been   established, which would have entitled her to contact with them provided that it served their best   interests. Taking into consideration the period of less than three weeks which Ms S. and the children   had spent together, the courts then came to the conclusion that such a relationship had not been   established. Furthermore, the Court noted that under the applicable provisions the termination of   Ms S.’s right as a parent was the consequence of her consent to the deed before the civil law notary.   That notary’s explanation had not been in dispute and the declaration adopted before the notary   had not referred to a “half-open adoption”. In separate proceedings, the German courts had already   established that the adoption deed was valid.   Moreover, the Court accepted that the courts’ decisions had pursued the legitimate aim of   protecting the rights of the children. The courts had aimed to comply with the legislator’s will to give   preference to a newly established family relationship between the children and the adoptive   parents, so as to allow the children to develop in their adoptive family without disruption.   As regards the question of whether a fair balance had been struck between the competing interests   at stake, the Court observed that the adoptive parents had given Ms S. reason to expect a “half-   open” adoption and had consented orally to at least an exchange of information about the children   after the adoption. The Court took note of the German Government’s explanation that national law   permitted such forms of adoption, allowing for contact of greater or lesser intensity between the   adoptive parents, the child and the biological parents. As the Government explained, those forms of   adoption were dependent on the consent of the adoptive parents, who held custody rights and   exercised parental care in the best interests of the child. They were based on declarations of intent   which were not legally enforceable against the will of the adoptive parents.   The oral arrangements between Ms S. and the adoptive parents had been made after she had been   informed by an independent lawyer, a civil law notary – whose legal advice constituted an essential   safeguard against misunderstanding – about the legal consequences of her intention to declare her   irrevocable consent to the adoption. This indicated that Ms S. must have understood the   arrangements as mere declarations of intent by the adoptive parents to voluntarily set aside their   anonymity.   Having regard to the fact that Ms S.’s rights with regard to the children had been severed as a result   of acts she had taken in full knowledge of the consequences, the Court found the German   authorities’ decision to give more importance to the privacy and family interests of the adoptive   family to be proportionate.   In view of those considerations, the Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 8.   Separate opinion   Judge Power-Forde, joined by Judge Zupančič, expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to   the judgment.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHRpress.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3