Tokens: This
case
requires
the
balancing
of
the
mother
’
s
Article
8
right
not
to
disclose
information
about
a
most
intimate
fact
of
her
life
and
that
of
her
offspring
(
the
applicant
)
to
know
her
origins
.
If
this
were
the
only
issue
in
the
case
I
would
have
no
difficulty
following
the
reasoning
of
the
majority
.
Moreover
,
only
the
most
compelling
reasons
are
acceptable
where
a
right
is
denied
in
all
circumstances
by
a
blanket
prohibition
.
However
,
the
legislation
,
with
its
absolute
ban
on
the
disclosure
of
information
regarding
maternity
(
where
the
parent
has
refused
such
disclosure
)
,
reasonably
serves
Convention
rights
beyond
the
scope
of
Article
8
.
The
protection
of
anonymity
is
a
measure
that
serves
the
right
to
life
of
the
offspring
:
in
the
present
case
the
possibility
of
giving
birth
anonymously
with
an
absolute
guarantee
of
anonymity
must
have
allowed
the
applicant
to
be
born
and
to
be
born
in
circumstances
that
do
not
endanger
her
health
and
/
or
the
health
of
the
mother
.
That
anonymity
is
related
to
the
State
’
s
duty
to
protect
the
right
to
life
,
a
right
that
is
the
direct
emanation
of
the
highest
value
of
the
Convention
.
Contrary
to
the
generally
applicable
consideration
that
all
Convention
rights
are
,
in
the
abstract
,
equal
,
the
right
to
life
is
recognized
as
a
supreme
right
.
Of
course
,
the
right
to
life
is
only
indirectly
protected
by
the
anonymity
provision
.
However
,
this
supremacy
is
decisive
for
me
in
the
balancing
exercise
,
which
cannot
be
limited
to
a
conflict
between
two
Article
8
right-holders
.
I
would
add
that
the
applicant
–
contrary
to
Jäggi
v
.
Switzerland
,
no
.
58757
/
00
,
§
44
,
ECHR
2006
‑
X
and
paragraph
67
of
the
present
judgment
–
did
not
show
particular
and
lasting
concern
about
her
origins
,
as
she
waited
twenty-three
years
before
bringing
her
claim
before
a
court
.
This
would
be
a
consideration
in
the
balancing
exercise
if
I
were
supposed
to
be
doing
the
actual
balancing
.
However
,
that
is
not
my
duty
here
.
The
balancing
exercise
was
carried
out
by
the
Italian
Constitutional
Court
in
a
comparable
case
(
Sentenza
no
.
425
/
2005
)
.
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
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
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