Equal Rights, Equally Applied

Every right in the Convention has to be secured without discrimination. What Article 14 says, how it works, and the 2003 cases where two German fathers won.

Edition 10, first published 28 October 2026.

Yesterday, in Edition 9, I wrote about the right to marry and to found a family, and how one signature at the register office can decide whether the law sees a dad as a parent. Today’s right sits behind every other right in this series: the right to have your rights secured without discrimination.

Picture two dads in the same court corridor, on the same morning. Same worry, same folder of papers, same child-sized hole in their week.

One was married to his child’s mum and is now divorced. The other never married her. Should the court treat them differently? Should one of them have to prove more than the other before he gets to see his child?

Article 14 is the Article that asks that question.

What the right says

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, given effect in UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, says:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

Look at the words “such as”. The list is examples, not a closed set. “Other status” has been read to cover things like whether your parents were married when you were born, and whether you were married to your child’s mother.

What it means in plain English

Article 14 is a bit unusual. It doesn’t give you a free-standing right to equal treatment in everything. It’s a companion right. It only works alongside another Convention right.

The European Court of Human Rights put it like this: Article 14 “has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to ‘the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms’” in the Convention.

So you can’t just say “I was treated unfairly.” You have to show three things:

• The issue falls within another right. For a parent seeing their child, that’s almost always Article 8, family life. I wrote about it in Edition 6.

• You were treated differently from someone in a similar position. A divorced father and a never-married father, for example.

• There’s no good reason for the difference. The Court says a difference is discriminatory if it has “no objective and reasonable justification”.

The good news is that you don’t have to prove the other right was broken first. You only have to show the issue is within its reach. A state can act lawfully under Article 8 and still break Article 14, if it does it in a discriminatory way.

How it applies in the Family Court

The clearest example for dads comes from Germany, and two cases decided on the same day.

In Sahin v Germany and Sommerfeld v Germany, both decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 July 2003, two fathers had been refused contact with their children. Neither had been married to the child’s mother.

Under the German law at the time, a divorced father had a legal right of contact, which could be limited if the child’s interests required it. A father whose child was born outside marriage had no such right. His contact depended on the mother agreeing, or on a court deciding contact was in the child’s interests.

The Grand Chamber looked at how that law had been applied to each father. It found no breach of Article 8 on its own. But in both cases it found a breach of Article 14 taken together with Article 8. The unmarried fathers had been put in a worse position than divorced fathers, and Germany couldn’t justify it.

Two dads. Same love for their children. Germany had to answer for treating them as second-class parents because they had never married.

Germany had already changed that law by the time the Grand Chamber ruled. The cases still matter for every parent in Europe, because they say a simple thing out loud: you can’t give one father less of a chance than another because of his marital status, unless there is a very good reason.

What about here? In England and Wales, the Children Act 1989 lets any parent apply for a child arrangements order (section 10(4)(a)). Married or not, a father can go to court. The difference that still exists is the one I wrote about yesterday, parental responsibility, and how an unmarried dad gets it.

Why this is about equality and children

Article 14 is the equality right. And equality is a question you can only answer with evidence.

If a court system treats mothers and fathers the same, the outcomes should be able to show it. If it doesn’t, the outcomes would show that too. But nobody can show either thing if the outcomes aren’t counted.

That isn’t an accusation. It’s a question. And it protects children too, because a child loses out whenever either parent is pushed to the edge for no good reason.

What you can do

• Know that Article 14 never works alone. If you think you’ve been treated differently, the first question is which other right it touches. For contact with your child, that’s usually Article 8.

• Ask the comparison question. Who is in a similar position, and were they treated better? Write it down plainly.

• Remember that marital status counts as “other status”. Sahin and Sommerfeld are the cases to know.

• Know your route in. In England and Wales, any parent can apply for a child arrangements order. Take advice if you’re not sure where you stand.

• Ask your MP one question. Are Family Court outcomes counted and published by the sex of the parent? If not, why not?

This series is general information, not legal advice.

Sources

• ECHR, Article 14 (official text, ETS No. 5, as amended): https://rm.coe.int/1680063765

• Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Article 14: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/13

• Sahin v Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, 8 July 2003, para 85: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61194

• Sommerfeld v Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, 8 July 2003, paras 89–92 and operative provisions: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61195

• Children Act 1989, s.10(4)(a): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/10

Charley Bickers, Founder of UN For Men - The United Global Alliance For Men & Boys

[Subscribe on Substack button]

The United Global Alliance For Men & Boys is not part of, affiliated with, or endorsed by the United Nations. UN for Men is our campaign for a dedicated UN body for men and boys.