003-5133995-6337799

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 247 (2015)   16.07.2015   Inflexibility of Russian family law: complete and automatic exclusion   of non-biological father from child’s life after termination of his paternity   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Nazarenko v. Russia (application no. 39438/13) the   European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on   Human Rights.   The case concerned Mr Nazarenko’s exclusion from his daughter’s life when, it having been revealed   that he was not the biological father, his paternity was terminated.   The Court found in particular that the authorities had failed to provide a possibility for the family ties   between Mr Nazarenko and the child, who had developed a close emotional bond over a number of   years and believed themselves to be father and daughter, to be maintained. Mr Nazarenko’s   complete and automatic exclusion from the child’s life after the termination of his paternity without   any weighing in the balance of the child’s best interests – the consequence of the inflexibility of the   domestic law which provides that only relatives are entitled to maintain contact – had therefore   amounted to a failure to respect his family life.   Indeed, the Court considered that States should be obliged to examine on a case-by-case basis   whether it is in a child’s best interests to maintain contact with a person, whether biologically   related or not.   Principal facts   The applicant, Anatoliy Nazarenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Ulan-Ude   (Republic of Buryatia, Russia).   During their marriage, Mr Nazarenko and his wife had a daughter, A., born in 2007. The couple later   divorced in 2010 and the childcare authorities authorised A. to reside alternately with both parents.   Court proceedings ensued in which both parties made applications for their daughter to reside   uniquely with them. From March 2011 Mr Nazarenko refused – despite court decisions ordering that   the child should reside with the mother – to return his daughter to the mother, suspecting the   latter’s new partner of child abuse. A year later the mother kidnapped A. from Mr Nazarenko and   has since prevented him from seeing his daughter. The criminal proceedings into alleged   mistreatment and sexual abuse of A. were discontinued in April 2013 due to lack of evidence.   In the meantime, the mother contested Mr Nazarenko’s paternity of the child and in July 2012 it was   established that he was not the child’s biological father. Thus, in September 2012 the Oktyabrskiy   District Court terminated Mr Nazarenko’s paternity of A. This decision was upheld on appeal by the   Supreme Court in February 2013. As a result, Mr Nazarenko lost all parental rights, including the   right to maintain contact with her. Furthermore, his name was removed from the child’s birth   certificate and the child’s family name had to be changed.   1. 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.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Nazarenko complained about the   termination of his paternity, alleging that this had deprived him of contact with his daughter and the   ability to defend her interests in court. Also relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing / access to   court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained in particular that he had not been   informed of the appeal hearing of February 2013 on his case.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 May 2013.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Isabelle Berro (Monaco), President,   Elisabeth Steiner (Austria),   Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),   Julia Laffranque (Estonia),   Ksenija Turković (Croatia),   Dmitry Dedov (Russia),   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 8 (right to respect for family life)   In the present case, the child had been born during Mr Nazarenko’s marriage and had been   registered as his daughter. He had cared for her for five years and they had developed a close   emotional bond, believing themselves to be father and daughter. Thus, the Court found that, despite   the absence of a biological link, the relationship between Mr Nazarenko and the child had amounted   to family life. In this respect, the Court confirmed that the absence of biological links with a child did   not negate the existence of family life for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention; it was   essentially a question of whether there existed in practice close personal ties.   In examining whether there had been a failure to respect Mr Nazarenko’s right to respect for his   family life, the Court expressed concern about the inflexibility of the domestic law. The domestic law   – the Family Code – did not provide for any exceptions which would have allowed Mr Nazarenko, not   having any biological links with the child, to maintain any form of relationship with her. Notably, the   Family Code provides that only parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters and other relatives are   entitled to maintain contact. Thus, persons who, like Mr Nazarenko, are not related to but have   taken care of a child for a long period of time and formed a close personal bond, were prevented   from obtaining contact rights, without any weighing in the balance of the child’s best interests in a   particular set of circumstances.   Indeed, the Court considered that States should be obliged to examine on a case-by-case basis   whether it is in the child’s best interests to maintain contact with a person, whether biologically   related or not, who has taken care of him or her for a relatively long time.   On the facts of Mr Nazarenko’s case, the Court concluded that the authorities had failed to provide a   possibility for the family ties between the applicant and the child to be maintained. Mr Nazarenko’s   complete and automatic exclusion from the child’s life after the termination of his paternity without   any possibility to have regard to the child’s best interests – the consequence of the inflexibility of the   domestic law – had therefore amounted to a failure to respect his family life, in violation of Article 8.   Other articles   Given the conclusion under Article 8, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine   separately Mr Nazarenko’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   Mr Nazarenko not having submitted a claim for just satisfaction, the Court decided to make no such   award.   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   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   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