MARCKX v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MATSCHER 54 registry office but requires in addition a declaration by the mother recognising this affiliation do not thereby violate Article 8 para. 1 (art. 8-1) of the Convention. Of course, personally, I see no need for this double formality (entry on the register and recognition of affiliation) and I find the arguments put forward by the respondent Government to support it (protection of mother and child) scarcely convincing. In my view, however, the inconvenience of this formality is so small - particularly since the declaration of recognition by the mother can be included in the birth certificate itself - that no one can regard it as an appreciable hardship for those concerned or as an interference calculated to hinder the "development of family relations". I accept that this reasoning applies principally to the unmarried mother and that, as far as the child is concerned, the only method of establishing her affiliation available to her under Belgian law, failing voluntary recognition by the mother, was to take legal proceedings for the purpose. However, this problem did not arise in the instant case as the mother voluntarily recognised her child fourteen days after birth, with the result that on this account the child cannot really be considered as a victim. This hypothesis can therefore be disregarded unless one wishes to pass judgment on Belgian law in abstracto, a course which the Court has quite rightly excluded (paragraphs 26 and 27 of the present judgment). Moreover, the reasoning in the judgment contains nothing which could be taken as convincing proof that the Belgian system for establishing the maternal affiliation of "illegitimate" children has the adverse consequences complained of for the creation and development of a family life between the mother and her child born out of wedlock. I can therefore find no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) taken alone. 2. It is true that Belgian law only requires a mother to recognise the affiliation in the case of children born out of wedlock. This undoubtedly constitutes differential treatment as compared with legitimate children. However, and even if one firmly supports the theory of the autonomy of Article 14 (art. 14) (paragraph 32 of the present judgment), in order to constitute discrimination within the meaning of this provision the unequal treatment must be such as might be deemed to be an appreciable interference with the enjoyment of a fundamental right recognised by the Convention. For I do not believe that a difference of treatment with respect to a fundamental right which, even though lacking in our opinion objective and reasonable justification (that is, not appearing to us to be necessary), does not really interfere with a right that the Convention intends to protect constitutes, by itself, discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 (art. 14). As I have stated above, the requirement of a recognition of affiliation, which can take the form of a simple declaration accompanying the entry of