issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 120 (2012)
22.03.2012
German courts’ refusal to allow two presumed fathers to
challenge other men’s paternity was legitimate
, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
No violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and no
violation of Article
8
in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of
discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights
The case concerned the German courts’ refusal to allow two men to respectively
challenge another man’s paternity, in one case of the applicant’s biological daughter, in
the other case of the applicant’s presumed biological daughter.
Principal facts
The applicant in the first case, Denis Ahrens, was born in 1970 and lives in Berlin. The
applicant in the second case, Heiko Kautzor, was born in 1971 and lives in Willich
(Germany). Both are German nationals.
Mr Ahrens assumed that he was the biological father of a girl born in August 2005, with
whose mother, Ms P., he had had a relationship. At the time of conception, Ms P. lived
with another man, Mr M., who acknowledged paternity of her child. The partners jointly
exercise parental authority and bring up the child together. In October 2005, Mr Ahrens
lodged an action to challenge Mr M.’s paternity, submitting a statutory declaration that
he had had intimate relations with Ms P. during the period of conception. Mr M.
submitted in reply that he assumed full parental responsibility for the child, even if he
was not her biological father.
In a judgment of April 2007, the district court, having heard the parties and considered
an expert report and the result of a blood test of the two men, established that Mr
Ahrens was the child’s biological father and found that he was not precluded from
challenging Mr M.’s paternity. However, the court of appeal quashed the judgment in
August 2007, holding that he did not have the right to challenge paternity, because of
the social and family relationship between Mr M. and the child, which had continued
even after it had been established that Mr M. was not the biological father. In May 2009,
the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider Mr Ahrens’ constitutional complaint.
Mr Kautzor assumed that he was the biological father of his former wife’s daughter,
born in March 2005. His former wife, Ms D., lives with a new partner, Mr E., who
acknowledged paternity of her daughter in May 2006. The couple subsequently had two
more children together and got married. Mr Kautzor indicated to his former wife that he
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:
