8.  The applicants were born in 1971, 1946 and 1948 respectively and live in Geneva. 9.  In 1971 Mariannick Faucherre (the second applicant) and her husband had a daughter, Isabelle Chantal Emonet (the first applicant). The couple divorced in 1985 and the second applicant's former husband died in 1994. 10.  Since 1986 Mariannick Faucherre has been living with Roland Emonet (the third applicant), who is divorced and has no children. The three applicants lived together between 1986 and 1992, when the first applicant left to live with the man she had married. The couple divorced in 1998. 11.  In March 2000 a serious illness left the first applicant paraplegic. She kept her own home, but needed to be cared for by her mother and the third applicant, whom she regarded as her father. By agreement between the three applicants, it was therefore decided that the third applicant should adopt the first applicant so that they could become a real family in the eyes of the law. 12.  On 14 December 2000 the third applicant filed an adoption request with the Canton of Geneva Court of Justice, enclosing two letters attesting to the other two applicants' agreement. 13.  On 8 March 2001 the Court of Justice pronounced the adoption. 14.  On 15 June 2001 the cantonal civil status authorities informed the second applicant that the adoption had the effect of terminating her legal parent-child relationship with the first applicant and that the latter would take on her adoptive father's surname, as she was henceforth his daughter. The first two applicants objected to the termination of the mother-daughter relationship between them and requested that it be restored. 15.  In a letter of 23 July 2001 the cantonal civil status authorities announced that they were standing by their decision, which was based on Article 267 of the Swiss Civil Code (see “Relevant domestic and international law”, paragraph 20 below). Under the provisions of that Article previously existing parent-child relationships were severed on adoption, save in respect of the spouse of the adoptive parent. Mariannick Faucherre and Roland Emonet, however, were simply cohabiting. 16.  On 3 September 2001 the President of the Geneva Department of Justice, Police and Transport formally rejected the request for restoration of the mother-daughter relationship. The applicants applied to the administrative court seeking to have that decision quashed and requesting a declaration that the adoption had not severed the mother-child relationship and that the adopted child could keep her name. On 17 December 2001 the applicants instituted parallel proceedings in the Court of Justice to have the adoption order set aside. The court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the present application. 17.  On 25 June 2002 the administrative court partly allowed the application, setting aside the decisions of 23 July and 3 September 2001 in so far as they severed the mother-daughter relationship, and ordering the cantonal civil status authorities to restore that relationship. 18.  On 2 September 2002 the Federal Office of Justice, having been informed of that decision, referred the matter to the Federal Court. 19.  On 28 May 2003 the Federal Court allowed the appeal and invited the cantonal civil status authorities to record the adoption in the civil status register. In its judgment the Federal Court considered whether there was an omission in the Civil Code with regard to the adoption by a cohabitant of his or her partner's child. It pointed out that the adoption of the spouse's child, whether considered as a form of joint adoption or as adoption by a single person, created a legal parent-child relationship between the child and the adoptive parent without severing the existing relationship between the child and its parent. It also pointed out that adoption should be in the interest of the child, so that joint adoption should be the rule and adoption by a single person the exception. The Federal Court noted that adoption by a single person was not subject to any condition other than that of the child's welfare. It concluded that adoption could satisfy that condition only if the link between the partners was strong and lasting, which in principle excluded cohabiting partners, between whom relationships were less stable than between married couples. That was also the reasoning behind the adoption of section 3, paragraph 3, of the Federal Medically Assisted Procreation Act of 18 December 1998, which entered into force on 1 January 2001 and restricted sperm donation to married couples only. The Federal Court reiterated in this connection that the Federal Council had explicitly stated that the requirements in respect of sperm donation could not be less strict than those concerning joint adoption, a possibility which was open only to married couples, that a stable and lasting relationship between the parents was essential to the child's healthy development, and that common-law partnerships were generally less solid than marriages and, unlike marriage, did not guarantee durability and could therefore not be compared with marriage. The Federal Court thus held that Article 264 a) § 3 of the Civil Code could not be applied by analogy, and that there was no omission in the law that needed to be remedied. That court considered that the situation was that provided for in Article 264 b) § 1 of the Civil Code (see “Relevant domestic and international law”, paragraph 20 below). Concerning the Convention, the Federal Court considered that Article 8 did not embody the right to demand a form of adoption that was not provided for by law. Furthermore, the very essence of adoption being the forging of new family ties, prohibiting the accumulation of parent-child relationships was not at variance with Article 8. As to Article 12 of the Convention, the Federal Court repeated that it referred only to marriage and did not confer a right to adopt. The Federal Court also considered the complaint concerning the applicants' unwillingness to accept the legal consequences of the adoption, and found that they could bring proceedings to have the adoption annulled for lack of consent. The judgment was served on the applicants on 3 October 2003.