7.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Breda. He had a relationship with Ms B. from mid-1993. On 14 April 1995 a daughter, named A., was born to Ms B. and the applicant. 8.  Pursuant to Article 1:287 § 1 of the Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek), as then in force, Ms B. obtained guardianship (voogdij) of A. The applicant was appointed as A.’s auxiliary guardian (toeziend voogd) on 19 May 1995 by the Enschede District Court judge (kantonrechter). The applicant’s auxiliary guardianship ended on 2 November 1995, when an amendment to the Civil Code came into force abolishing that function. 9.  The applicant and Ms B. did not formally cohabit, but the applicant visited her and A. on a regular basis. He also babysat and took care of A. on several occasions. Ms B. sometimes consulted the applicant about A.’s hearing problems. The applicant did not formally recognise (erkenning) A., as Ms B. refused to give her permission and her family also opposed such recognition. Although the applicant could have sought judicial consent for recognising A. (see paragraph 17 below), he did not avail himself of this possibility, considering that it would stand little chance of success. Moreover, the applicant preferred to respect the position adopted by Ms B. and her relatives, and maintain the de facto family ties he had with his daughter rather than establish formal legal ties with her. 10.  In August 1996 the applicant’s relationship with Ms B. broke down. On 23 January 1997 the applicant requested the Almelo Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) to grant him access (omgangsregeling) to A. one weekend every fortnight and some weeks during the holiday period. In those proceedings Ms B. argued primarily that the applicant’s request should be declared inadmissible in that there had never been any family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention between the applicant and A. and, in so far as family life had existed, it had ceased to exist after the end of her relationship with the applicant. In the alternative, Ms B. argued that to grant the applicant access would not be in A.’s interests. Ms B. further submitted that the applicant had behaved badly towards her (violence and financial abuse) and had shown little interest in A. She indicated, lastly, that A.’s hearing was impaired and that her daughter thus required a special approach of which she deemed the applicant incapable. 11.  By a decision of 26 February 1997, the Almelo Regional Court accepted that there was family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention between the applicant and A., and that this family life had not ceased to exist since the breakdown of the applicant’s relationship with Ms B. It consequently declared the applicant’s request admissible. However, given the difficulties between the applicant and Ms B., the Regional Court decided to order the Child Care and Protection Board (Raad voor de Kinderbescherming) to conduct an investigation and to report to it on the feasibility of an access arrangement. 12.  Ms B. filed an appeal against this decision with the Arnhem Court of Appeal (gerechtshof). By a decision of 16 September 1997, the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 26 February 1997 and declared the applicant’s request inadmissible. In its decision, the Court of Appeal stated:
“3.1  Out of the parties’ relationship (lasting from mid-1993 to August 1996), A. was born. Mr L. is the biological father of A. He has not recognised the child. The mother holds parental authority over A. by law.
... 4.5  In addition to what is stated under 3.1, the following, as contended by one side, and not, or insufficiently, disputed by the other, has been established or become plausible.
The father was present at A.’s birth. He has never been formally registered at the mother’s address, but (up to August 1996) regularly visited the mother. He has also changed A.’s nappy a few times [enkele malen] and has babysat her once or twice [een enkele keer], but not since August 1996. Further, the mother has on several occasions [verschillende keren] had contact by telephone with the father about (the hearing problems of) A. 4.6  In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it has been insufficiently established that the father has a close personal relationship with the child – who at the time of the breakdown of the parties’ relationship was one year old – or that there is a link between him and the child that can be regarded as ‘family life’ within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. The further circumstances relied on by the father, from which it would appear that he has a close personal relationship with the child, have – in contrast to the substantiated denial thereof by the mother – not been established. The terminology used by the mother in the proceedings (she spoke about ‘a relationship until October 1996’ and ‘my ex-partner’) cannot, either in itself or in connection with the above circumstances, lead to a different conclusion.
... 5.1  On the basis of the above considerations, the impugned decision is quashed, and the father’s request is declared inadmissible.” 13.  The applicant’s subsequent appeal on points of law was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) on 5 June 1998. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the mere biological link between the applicant and A. was sufficient to attract the protection of Article 8 of the Convention. It held that “family life” for the purposes of Article 8 implied the existence of further personal ties in addition to biological paternity. As to the lack of existence of such further personal ties, it accepted the findings of the Court of Appeal.