Tokens: We
agree
with
the
majority
of
the
Court
that
at
the
heart
of
this
case
lies
“
the
applicant
's
ability
to
obtain
recognition
of
Mr
G.
as
the
biological
father
of
the
stillborn
child
,
notwithstanding
the
legal
presumption
that
the
husband
was
the
father
of
the
child
born
within
three
hundred
days
of
the
dissolution
of
the
marriage
.
The
attribution
of
her
late
partner
's
surname
and
patronymic
name
to
the
stillbirth
would
come
as
a
corollary
of
such
recognition
”
(
see
paragraph
25
of
the
judgment
)
.
This
reading
of
the
case
by
the
majority
faithfully
reflects
the
position
of
the
applicant
during
the
domestic
proceedings
,
in
which
she
asked
the
national
courts
to
establish
Mr
G.
's
paternity
in
respect
of
the
stillbirth
and
,
as
a
consequence
,
to
allow
her
to
change
the
latter
's
name
.
So
we
are
not
faced
with
a
situation
where
the
applicant
had
simply
asked
for
a
change
of
a
name
:
what
she
was
requesting
before
the
national
courts
was
mainly
a
recognition
of
paternity
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O