## Facts

- X, registered female at birth, underwent hormone treatment and gender reassignment surgery and thereafter lived as a man.
- X and Y began cohabiting in 1979 in a stable, long-term partnership and presented socially as a couple.
- The couple pursued artificial insemination by donor (AID); Y conceived with anonymous donor sperm and gave birth to Z.
- X and Y sought to register Z’s birth with X listed as the father, but the registrar refused because domestic law required a father to be a biological male and X’s legal sex remained female for birth-registration purposes.
- X claimed the lack of paternal registration caused legal and practical disadvantages and undermined the family’s security, although X continued to live with and raise Z as the social father and could seek certain parental-responsibility arrangements under domestic law.
- The applicants complained under Article 8 and Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether X, Y, and Z’s relationship constituted “family life” within Article 8.
2. Whether Article 8 imposed a positive obligation on the United Kingdom to recognize X as Z’s legal father by permitting paternal registration.
3. Whether the refusal to register X as father entailed discrimination contrary to Article 14 taken with Article 8.

## Decision

- The court held Article 8 was applicable because the applicants had de facto family ties amounting to “family life.”
- The court found no violation of Article 8, concluding the United Kingdom was not required to confer legal paternal status on X in these circumstances.
- The court declined to examine Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 separately, treating it as duplicative of the Article 8 complaint.

## Legal Principles

- “Family life” under Article 8 is not limited to marriage or biologically traditional families and may include stable de facto relationships and functional parent-child bonds.
- When a claim concerns a State’s alleged positive obligation to create or extend a legal status, the court assesses whether a fair balance was struck between individual interests and the general interest.
- In sensitive areas lacking a common European approach, States receive a wide margin of appreciation.
- A State may prioritize coherence in family law and the best interests of the child and may proceed cautiously where recognition sought could affect related legal rules (e.g., descent, succession, parental responsibility).
- The absence of formal legal recognition may be compatible with Article 8 where family life is practically respected and alternative legal mechanisms exist to secure aspects of parental responsibility.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that X, Y, and Z formed “family life” under Article 8, but held that Article 8 did not require the United Kingdom to register X as Z’s legal father, given the wide margin of appreciation in an evolving area of parenthood law and the State’s interest in a coherent family-law framework; it therefore found no Article 8 violation and did not separately decide the Article 14 claim.


X, Y & Z v. United Kingdom, App. No. 21830/93 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1997)