MARCKX v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA 58 among the persons statutorily entitled means that intestate succession is not governed solely by considerations of family protection. "The process of succession (Inocencio Galvao Telles, The Law of Succession, p. 13) concentrates essentially on the patrimonial aspects. It is what is to happen to the deceased’s estate, his assets and his debts which is at stake. This is the situation at the present day and it derives from very ancient rules which have gradually acquired greater clarity through the centuries. A different conception prevailed only in very remote times." Death is the hub of the law of succession because it is the normal cause of the passing of the estate. It is therefore only after the death of the de cujus that succession occurs and that there are heirs. Thus death puts an end to family life, and, with the exception of the reserved portion, inheritance rights are in my opinion outside the scope of Article 8 (art. 8) (taken either alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+8)) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 3. In spite of what I have said above I support the majority opinion that there was a breach of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 14+8), with respect to Alexandra and Paula Marckx, but only as regards the Belgian law concerning the reserved portion, voluntary dispositions and the maintenance obligations of the near relatives of the unmarried mother towards her children. 4. I very much regret not to be able to share the opinion that the majority of my distinguished colleagues expressed as follows (paragraph 58): "Having regard to all these circumstances, the principle of legal certainty, which is necessarily inherent in the law of the Convention as in Community law, dispenses the Belgian State from re-opening legal acts or situations that antedate the delivery of the present judgment." The function of the European Court of Human Rights is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention, by interpreting the latter and stating the law that derives from it. The Court has jurisdiction not to re-draft the Convention but to apply it. Only the High Contracting Parties can alter the contents of the obligations assumed. I therefore consider that it is not for the Court to express an opinion on the applicability of the law it states to cases other than the particular case it has decided. The execution properly so called of the judgment lies outside the Court’s jurisdiction; under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention, "the judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers which shall supervise its execution". It is primarily for the Belgian national courts to decide questions raised by domestic legislation on past, present and future facts. It is they who, as