Quick answer
In Marckx v. Belgium (Plenary Court, 13 June 1979, application no. 6833/74), the European Court of Human Rights held that Belgian law on the status of children born outside marriage violated Article 8 (right to respect for family life), taken alone and together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). The judgment established that the guarantee of “family life” extends fully to the family formed by an unmarried mother and her child, and that discrimination between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” children lacks objective justification.
Background and facts
The applicants were Paula Marckx, an unmarried mother, and her young daughter Alexandra. Under the Belgian Civil Code as it then stood, the legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child was not established automatically by the fact of birth, as it was for married mothers. To create a maternal affiliation, an unmarried mother had to recognise her child formally, and even then the child’s legal ties to the mother’s wider family, and its rights of inheritance, remained restricted compared with those of a child born in wedlock. To give her daughter fuller rights, Paula Marckx would in practice have had to adopt her own child.
The applicants complained that this scheme interfered with, and failed to respect, their family life, and discriminated against them because Alexandra had been born outside marriage.
The complaint
- Article 8 — that the rules on establishing maternal affiliation and the limited family and inheritance ties failed to respect their family life; and
- Article 14 with Article 8 (and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) — that the applicants were discriminated against by comparison with a “legitimate” family.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court held first that “family life”, within the meaning of Article 8, is not confined to families based on marriage: it encompasses the tie between an unmarried mother and her child from the moment of birth. Article 8 does not merely compel the State to abstain from interference; it may also give rise to positive obligations inherent in effective respect for family life. A State’s domestic law must therefore allow those concerned to lead a normal family life, and legal safeguards must be in place from birth to integrate the child into its family.
The requirement that an unmarried mother formally recognise, or even adopt, her own child in order to establish and complete the legal bond failed to respect the applicants’ family life, in breach of Article 8. The Court then held that the difference in treatment between children born within and outside marriage — as regards affiliation, family ties and inheritance rights — pursued no legitimate aim capable of justifying it. Drawing on the emerging common ground among Council of Europe States that such distinctions should be abolished, the Court found the difference in treatment discriminatory and in breach of Article 14 taken with Article 8 (and, as regards inheritance, with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
Conscious of the implications for legal certainty, the Court also indicated that the principle of legal certainty dispensed Belgium from reopening legal acts or situations that predated the judgment.
The judgment
- a breach of Article 8 taken alone, in respect of the manner of establishing the child’s maternal affiliation;
- a breach of Article 14 taken with Article 8 in respect of the discrimination against the applicants; and
- related breaches concerning family ties and inheritance rights.
Legacy and subsequent case law
Marckx is a foundational judgment on family life and equality. It prompted the reform of Belgian and other European family laws that discriminated against children born outside marriage, and it was followed in a line of cases — including Johnston v. Ireland, Inze v. Austria and Mazurek v. France — extending equal treatment to inheritance and family status. It also confirmed two enduring principles: that Article 8 embraces positive obligations, and that the Convention is a living instrument reflecting evolving European standards.
What this means for applicants
- Article 8 protects the family life of unmarried families from birth, and imposes positive duties on the State.
- Discrimination based on birth outside marriage requires very weighty justification and will rarely be compatible with Article 14.
- Evolving European consensus shapes what “respect” for family life requires.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Marckx v. Belgium decide?
The Court held that Belgian law on children born outside marriage violated Article 8, alone and with Article 14, because it failed to respect the family life of an unmarried mother and her child and discriminated against them compared with a family based on marriage.
Why is Marckx important?
It established that “family life” under Article 8 fully covers unmarried families from birth, that Article 8 can impose positive obligations, and that discrimination against “illegitimate” children lacks objective justification.
Did the judgment reopen past cases?
No. The Court indicated that the principle of legal certainty dispensed Belgium from reopening legal acts or situations predating the judgment.
What changed after Marckx?
It led to reform of family and inheritance laws across Europe that had discriminated against children born outside marriage, and was followed in later cases extending equal treatment.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic
- Biao v. Denmark
- Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria
- Bărbulescu v. Romania
- Von Hannover v. Germany
- Osman v. the United Kingdom
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.