## Facts

- Two German nationals lived in a registered same-sex civil partnership since 2001.
- In December 2008, the second applicant gave birth to a son; the birth certificate listed her as mother and left the father field blank.
- In March 2009, the applicants sought to amend the birth certificate to list the first applicant as the child’s second parent from birth.
- They argued the Civil Code’s marital presumption of fatherhood (husband of the mother) should apply by analogy to a female registered partner, regardless of biological ties.
- German courts rejected the request, reasoning that the birth certificate recorded descent at birth and that the statutory presumption applied only to a man married to the mother.
- In January 2010, a domestic court granted the first applicant a second-parent adoption, giving the child the legal status of a child of both applicants.
- The applicants applied to the European Court of Human Rights in February 2011, relying on Article 8 and Article 14.

## Issues

1. Whether refusing to list the non-biological female registered partner as a parent on the child’s birth certificate interfered with the applicants’ and the child’s right to respect for family life under Article 8.
2. Whether treating a same-sex registered partner differently from a husband in an opposite-sex marriage regarding automatic parent listing on a birth certificate constituted unjustified discrimination under Article 14 taken with Article 8.
3. Whether the availability and use of second-parent adoption rendered the complaint insufficiently serious or arguable for admissibility.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights declared the application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
- The Court accepted that the applicants and the child had “family life” within Article 8.
- It found no arguable basis that the refusal to amend the birth certificate undermined the substance of their family life, given that the first applicant obtained full legal parent status through adoption.
- It held that limiting the marital parentage presumption to heterosexual marriage, while permitting same-sex partners to establish legal parenthood via adoption, fell within the state’s margin of appreciation.
- It concluded the differential treatment was objectively and reasonably justified and proportionate, particularly absent demonstrated concrete disadvantages resulting solely from the birth-certificate entry.

## Legal Principles

- Article 8 protects existing family life, but states retain significant discretion over civil-status documentation and parentage frameworks, so long as the substance of family life is not impaired.
- Regulation of legal parentage, presumptions of parenthood, and the effects of registered partnerships generally falls within a wide margin of appreciation, especially where no clear European consensus exists.
- For Article 14 taken with Article 8, a difference in treatment must pursue a legitimate aim and be objectively and reasonably justified; proportionality is assessed in light of practical impact and available alternative legal recognition.
- Where a same-sex partner can secure full legal parent-child status through an effective mechanism (such as second-parent adoption), the absence of automatic parent listing at birth may be compatible with Articles 8 and 14 absent specific, serious harm.

## Conclusion

The Court found the complaint manifestly ill-founded because German law provided a workable route for the non-biological partner to become a legal parent through adoption, and the refusal to confer automatic birth-certificate parenthood by analogy to marital presumption rules did not, on the facts shown, amount to a disproportionate interference with family life or unjustified discrimination.


Boeckel & Gessner-Boeckel v. Ger., App. No. 8017/11 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2013)