| Applicant name | CHERRIER |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | France |
| Application no. | 18843/20 |
| Date | 30/01/2024 |
| Judges | Georges Ravarani , president , Chanturia side, Martin Mits, Stephanie Mourou-Vikström, Maria Elosegui, Mattias Guyomar, Kateřina Šimáčková |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | No violation |
| Reason | Fair balance struck |
| Type of privacy | Relational Privacy |
| Keywords | Identity Mother; Adoption |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complains about the refusal to inform her of the identity of her biological mother, which she claims violates her right of access to origins guaranteed by Article 8 |
| Analysis | The question is whether the respondent State, taking into account the margin of appreciation available to it, relied on relevant and sufficient grounds and struck a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant’s right to know her biological mother and, on the other, the latter’s rights and interests in maintaining her anonymity. The Court sees no reason to call into question the balance between rights struck by the domestic authorities in the present case. While it is regrettable that access to origins was weighed in the balance as a ” legitimate wish ” and not as a subjective right, like the right to give birth anonymously, the Court does not intend to draw any substantive conclusions from this finding for the following reasons. Judge Mourou-Vikstrom issued a dissenting opinion. Although one can understand that giving birth in secret is a choice offered to women, sometimes very young and often helpless, for whom the prospect of being a mother and raising a child is insurmountable, if the protection of the mother by absolute secrecy at the time of birth and the beginning of the child’s life gives priority to secrecy over the child’s right to know his or her origins, it should be considered that this balance varies over the years and that the interests involved become closer. A balance is reached and then gives rise to a reversal of the balance of power. The right to know takes precedence and maintaining secrecy becomes incompatible with the protection of the right to know one’s origins as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. Such an analysis, taking into account the applicant’s rights and their development over time in parallel with the mother’s fading rights, can only lead to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | – |
| Documents | Judgment |