Go back

The decree by the constitutional court on 3 February 2016 in the case of Delphine Boël.

Only the child’s best interests are considered and must take precedence over the periods established by the law

The constitutional court seeks affirmation of the case-law to the extent that the periods set out in the law on disputing and recognising paternity are not absolute and do not prohibit action.

In the Boël case, the court holds that when family connections exist or have existed (thus establishing possession of status between the adult child and the legal father), and the fact that this paternity link has actually been experienced, long after the child discovered that the husband of his mother (his legal father) was not his biological father, this cannot stop the adult child from acting.

The constitutional court held that “a short limitation period cannot prevent the child from referring to a judge to consider the facts and interests of all parties involved”: this period therefore infringes upon the child’s right to a private life and the article is unconstitutional.

The adult child can act free of any time limit.