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
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.
