## Facts

- Paula Marckx, an unmarried Belgian woman, gave birth in 1973 to Alexandra, a child born out of wedlock.
- Belgian civil law did not create a legal mother–child bond from birth for unmarried mothers; the mother had to complete special proceedings to recognize maternity or adopt the child.
- Even after recognition or adoption, the child’s inheritance rights—especially succession rights involving the maternal family—remained inferior to those of a child born in wedlock.
- The registration of an “illegitimate” birth triggered special administrative treatment, including notification to a judge, reflecting the child’s legal status.
- Marckx and Alexandra challenged the legal regime as interfering with their family life and as discriminatory in family status and inheritance rights.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring an unmarried mother to complete additional legal formalities to establish a mother–child bond violated Article 8 (respect for private and family life).
2. Whether differential treatment of children born out of wedlock in family-status rules violated Article 14, taken with Article 8.
3. Whether reduced inheritance rights for children born out of wedlock violated Article 14, taken with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions).
4. Whether the inheritance scheme, apart from discrimination, violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on its own.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights held Belgium violated Article 8.
- The Court held Belgium violated Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.
- The Court held Belgium violated Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The Court found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone.
- The Court declined to award monetary compensation, concluding the finding of violations constituted sufficient just satisfaction in the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- “Family life” under Article 8 exists between an unmarried mother and her child from birth, and the State must secure legal respect for that relationship in a practical and effective way.
- Requiring special recognition or adoption-like steps for an unmarried mother to establish maternity may constitute unjustified interference with Article 8 when it fails to reflect the reality of the family bond created by birth.
- Distinctions in family status based solely on birth out of wedlock require objective and reasonable justification; absent such justification, they breach Article 14 when linked to Article 8.
- Inheritance interests can fall within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for purposes of applying Article 14, and unequal succession treatment based solely on birth status can violate Article 14 in conjunction with property rights.
- States retain discretion to structure succession law; the Convention does not mandate a particular inheritance regime, but it forbids discriminatory enjoyment of succession-related rights.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that Belgium’s scheme denying automatic maternal affiliation and granting diminished inheritance rights to a child born out of wedlock failed to secure respect for family life and constituted unjustified discrimination, violating Articles 8 and 14 (with both Article 8 and Protocol No. 1), while the inheritance rules were not independently unlawful absent the discriminatory treatment.


Marckx v. Belg., 2 Eur. H.R. Rep. 330 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1979)