| X. c. IRLANDE

Articles 227 and 228 of the Dutch Civil Code however, an umerried person is not entitled to adopt. The applicant complains that he cannot adopt in Belgium a child whom he has taken care of for several Years . The application before the Commission has been brought against the Netherlands.
(TRANSLATION ) THE LAW 1 . The applicant complains that he cannot adopt an abandoned child whom he has taken care of for several years . He blames Dutch legislation for this situation . By virtue of principles of international private law referred to above, the application must however be considered ex officio as being directed against Belgium . 2 . The Commission recalls that the right to adopt is not, as such, included among the rights guaranteed by the Convention . Nor does it appear in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular Articles 23 and 24) . For many authors, from the point of view of domestic law, it does not concern a Itranslationl "fundamental right which is analogous to an individual freedom" (Despagnet, quoted by Loussouarn and Bourel, Juriscl . Dr . internat ., fesc . 548 B, No . 103) . Can the application nevertheless be usefully examined under Article 12 of the Convention which guarantees in particular the right to found a family 7 Various elements would indicate the contrary . In the first place, this provision does not guarantee the right to have children born out of wedlock . Article 12, in fact, foresees the right to marry and to found a family as one simple right .
However, even assuming that the right to found a family may be considered irrespective of marriage, the problem is not solved . Article 12 recognises in fact the right of man and woman at the age of consent to found a family i .e . to have children . The existence of a couple is fundamental . In the present case, the adoption of an adolescent by an unmarried person cannot lead to the existence of a family life in the meaning of the Convention . The fact that the applicant cannot claim "the right to found a family", does not mean, however, that the relationship between an adoptive parent and an adoptive child is not of the seme nature as the family relations protected by Article 8 of the Convention . The Commission is of the opinion that a State cannot separate two persons united by an adoption contract, or forbid them to meet, without engaging its responsibility under Article 8 of the Convention . But one should not deduce from this a positive obligation on the State to grant a particular status-that of adoption- to the applicant and the person in his care . It follows that the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . For these reasons the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
_77_
APPLICATION/REQUETE N° 6639/7 4 X . v/IRELAND X . c/IRLAND E DECISION of 4 October 1976 on the admissibility of the application DÉCISION du 4 octobre 1976 sur la recevabilité de la requête
Article 2 of the Convention : Does this provision have only negative scope or does it caff for positive action on the part of public authorities-in the present case, free medical services- if someone's life is in danger ? I Question not pursued ) Artfcfe 2 de fe Convention : Cette disposition n'a-t-elle qu'une portée négetive ou oblige-t-elle fes pouvoirs publics d une action positive - en f'espAce, la prestation de soins mAdicaux gratuits - lorsque la vie d'une personne est en danger )(Question non rAsofue) .
I fran rais : voir p. 79 )
Summary of the facts
The applicant has a daughter, born in 1968, who suffers from a serious deformation of the farynx, which prevents her from feeding normally . After a stay of one year in hospital, the child was taken back by her mother, who had fearned how to feed her. Since the child required constant medical care, her state of health caused particular hardships to the family, in particufar on the birth of other children . The appficant complains that her daughter has never been issued with a"medicaf card' ; which would have entitled her to free medical care and the help of a district nurse . As a result, the family had run into debt and the mother had a nervous breakdown. After having decided, through a lack of legal aid, not to institute proceedings against the authorities for wifful negligence, she brought the case of her daughter to the knowledge of the press. Thereupon she was issued with a temporary "medical card".
THE LAW The applicant has complained that the refusal of the authorities to give her severely disabled daughter a medical card and thus free medical treatment with other welfare benefits constituted a breach of her daughter's right to life guaranteed by Art . 2 of the Convention .
-76-
The question whether the scope of this provision is limited to the negative prohibition of the taking of life or could in certain circumstances call for positive action on the part of the High Contracting Parties can be left open in this case . Thus, even assuming this complaint could raise an issue under Art . 2, the Commission does not consider that the applicant has substantiated her allegations . The Commission notes that the entitlement to free medical services depends primarily on the income of the head of the family . A person who is refused a medical card entitling him, or a dependant, to free medical services by a local health board has a statutory right of appeal to the person so designated by the Minister of Health to deal with such appeals . The applicant has not shown that her family has exercised this right of appeal, although, when asked, she stated that she did do so, but any documents which could prove this have been destroyed in a fire . The Irish Government, at the request of the Rapporteur, supplied a chronological list of applications made by the applicant or her husband for medical cards, some of which were successful, but there are no details of any appeals . However, in any event, it is clear that at the time of those applications which were refused the applicant's husband was earning more than the income guidelines provided . Furthermore, a medical card has been issued for the applicant's daughter in 1968 and from 1972 to date, as being a case of special hardship . The applicant's daughter appears therefore to have received assistance from the local health authorities and her life has not been endangered . An examination by the Commission of this complaint, as it has been submitted, does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in particular in the above Article . It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 12) of the Convention .
For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
Résumé des fait s La requérante a une fille, née en 1968, qui souffre d'une mafformation grave du larynx l'empêchant de se nourrir normalement. Aprés une année d'hdpital, l'enfant fut reprise par sa mére, qui avait appris à la nourrir. Nécessitent des soins constants, son état est une cause de graves diNicultés pour la famille, surtout depuis la naissence d'autres enfants. La requérante prétend n'avoir jamais obtenu une « carte médicafe u qui aurait donné droit à sa fille à des soins gratuits et é%assistance d'une infirmiére. En conséquence, la famille se serait endettée et fa mére aurait souffert d'une dépression nerveuse . Aprés avoir renoncé, faute d'assistance judiciaire, à intenter action contre les eutorités pour négligence, elle aurait porté le cas de sa fille à la connaissance de la presse . Une carte médicale temporaire lui aurait alors été délivrée . _79_
(TRADUCTION ) EN DROI T La requérante fait valoir que le refus des autorités de délivrer à sa fille, gravement invalide, une a carte médicale a, qui lui donnerait droit à des soins gratuits et à d'autres avantages sociaux, constitue une violation dans le chef de sa fille du droit à la vie garantit par l'article 2 de la Convention . Il n'est pas nécessaire de trancher ici la question de savoir si la portée de cette disposition se limite à une interdiction (de caractère négatff) d'enlever la vie ou si elle s'étend dans certaines circonstances à l'obligation d'une action positive de la part des Hautes Parties Contractantes . A supposer même que la présente requête puisse soulever un probléme sous l'angle de l'article 2, la Commission doit constater que la requérante n'a pas apporté d'éléments à l'appui de ses allégations .
La Commission note que le droh à des soins médicaux gratuits dépend en premier lieu du niveau des ressources du chef de famille . Celui à qui une autorité sanitaire locale a refusé la délivrance d'une carte médicale donnant droit, à lui-même ou à une personne à sa charge, à des soins médicaux gratuits peut, en vertu de la loi, recourir auprés de l'autorité désignée par le Ministre de la santé publique pour connaître de tels recours . La requérante n'a nullement démontré que sa famille avait fait usage de ce droit de recours . Interrogé sur ce point, elle a répondu qu'elle avait recouru mais que tous les documents qui auraient pu l'établir avaient été détruits dans un incendie . A la demande du Rapporteur, le Gouvernement irlandais a produit une liste chronologique des demandes de carte médicale présentées par la requérante ou son mari - demandes dont certaines ont eu une suite favorable -, mais on n'y trouve aucune indication relative à des recours . Quoi qu'il en soit, il apparaPt clairement qu'é l'époque où les demandes de carte médicale furent rejetées, le mari de la requérante avait un salaire supérieur à la limite réglementaire de revenu . Une carte médicale a été délivrée à la fille de la requérante en 1968, ainsi que depuis 1972 à ce jour, son cas ayant été considéré comme particuliérement pénible . Il apparaPt donc que la fille de la requérante a reçu une assistance des autorités sanitaires locales et que sa vie n'a pas été mise en danger . L'examen de la présente requête, telle qu'elle a été formulée, ne permet donc pas de discerner l'apparence d'une violation des droits et libertés énoncés dans la Convention, en particulier dans la disposition sus-visée . Il s'ensuit que la requête est manifestement mal fondée, au sens de l'article 27 (2) de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commission DÉCLARE LA REQUÉTEIRRECEVABLE .
- 80 -