1. Exhaust domestic options
2. To what extent is the client a victim for the purposes of article 8 (Scope)
a. Does it fall within family life and/or private life?
i. What constitutes family life? The notion of family under this provision is not confined to marriage-based relationships and may encompass
other de facto “family” ties where the parties are living together out of wedlock. A child born out of such a relationship is ipso jure part of that
“family” unit from the moment and by the very fact of his birth (Keegan v Irland)
1. Applicability depends on multiple factors
a. . Although, as a rule, cohabitation may be a requirement for such a relationship, exceptionally other factors may also serve to
demonstrate that a relationship has sufficient constancy to create de facto “family ties” (Kroon v The Netherlands)
b. Quality of the relationship Keegan v Ireland
i. E.g. Planned pregnancy, planned marriage, cohabitation, length of the relationship
c. Children conceived out of that relationship Parry v UK
d. Potential family life Nylund v Finland
2. Examples:
a. Married couples
i. A child born to parents who are lawfully and genuinely married will be ipso iure part of that relationship from the moment
and by the fact of the child’s birth (Amounts to sufficient quality of relationship) (Keegan v Ireland)
b. Unmarried couples:
i. Article 8 applies automatically to the relationship between a mother and her child, regardless of her marital status (Marckx v
Belgium)
1. Dissenting opinion Fitzmaurice Scope of family life should be interpreted narrow or textual (contrary to Tyrer
judgement)
ii. Unmarried couples who live together (with their children)
1. Yes not limited to marriage-based relationships and may encompass other de facto “family” ties (Keegan v Ireland)
2. as a rule, living together may be a requirement for such a relationship, exceptionally other factors may also serve to
demonstrate that a relationship has sufficient constancy to create de facto "family ties" (Kroon and others v
Netherlands)
iii. Unmarried couples who live separate
1. Keegan v Ireland: In circumstances where one parent has prevented the development of family ties with a child the
potential for family life may be sufficient to attract the protection of Article 8. However, due to the nature of the
relationship between the child’s parents – they cohabited, planned the pregnancy and intended to marry – the Court
found that the potential family life between father and child meant that their relationship fell within the scope of
Article 8, notwithstanding that they had met on only one occasion.
2. Nylund v Finland:
2. To what extent is the client a victim for the purposes of article 8 (Scope)
a. Does it fall within family life and/or private life?
i. What constitutes family life? The notion of family under this provision is not confined to marriage-based relationships and may encompass
other de facto “family” ties where the parties are living together out of wedlock. A child born out of such a relationship is ipso jure part of that
“family” unit from the moment and by the very fact of his birth (Keegan v Irland)
1. Applicability depends on multiple factors
a. . Although, as a rule, cohabitation may be a requirement for such a relationship, exceptionally other factors may also serve to
demonstrate that a relationship has sufficient constancy to create de facto “family ties” (Kroon v The Netherlands)
b. Quality of the relationship Keegan v Ireland
i. E.g. Planned pregnancy, planned marriage, cohabitation, length of the relationship
c. Children conceived out of that relationship Parry v UK
d. Potential family life Nylund v Finland
2. Examples:
a. Married couples
i. A child born to parents who are lawfully and genuinely married will be ipso iure part of that relationship from the moment
and by the fact of the child’s birth (Amounts to sufficient quality of relationship) (Keegan v Ireland)
b. Unmarried couples:
i. Article 8 applies automatically to the relationship between a mother and her child, regardless of her marital status (Marckx v
Belgium)
1. Dissenting opinion Fitzmaurice Scope of family life should be interpreted narrow or textual (contrary to Tyrer
judgement)
ii. Unmarried couples who live together (with their children)
1. Yes not limited to marriage-based relationships and may encompass other de facto “family” ties (Keegan v Ireland)
2. as a rule, living together may be a requirement for such a relationship, exceptionally other factors may also serve to
demonstrate that a relationship has sufficient constancy to create de facto "family ties" (Kroon and others v
Netherlands)
iii. Unmarried couples who live separate
1. Keegan v Ireland: In circumstances where one parent has prevented the development of family ties with a child the
potential for family life may be sufficient to attract the protection of Article 8. However, due to the nature of the
relationship between the child’s parents – they cohabited, planned the pregnancy and intended to marry – the Court
found that the potential family life between father and child meant that their relationship fell within the scope of
Article 8, notwithstanding that they had met on only one occasion.
2. Nylund v Finland:
