CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 décembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s17287D88 { width:273.16pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid }   8 December 2010     SECOND SECTION Application no. 48494/06 by Krisztián Barnabas TÓTH against Hungary lodged on 24 November 2006   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Krisztián Barnabas Tóth, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Budapest. He is represented before the Court by Mr I.   Hegedűs, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 4 January 2005 the applicant’s former common-law wife gave birth to a girl. Subsequently, a Mr P. formally acknowledged the paternity of the girl while his wife adopted her, both with the mother consenting. This arrangement was endorsed by the Gyomaendrőd Custody Board. When the applicant found out about this, on 20 January 2005 he requested the Pest County Administrative Office to appoint an ad hoc guardian for the baby so that he could file an action with a view to establishing his own paternity. The Office refused to do so, observing that the girl’s family situation was settled and it was not in her interest to have the issue of paternity tried in court. The applicant’s administrative appeal was to no avail. The applicant challenged these decisions in court. On 15 September 2005 the Békés County Regional Court dismissed his action. On 17 May 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed his petition for review (Kfv.II.39.354/2005/7.). The Supreme Court endorsed the administrative authorities’ position that it was not in the interest of the child to call into question the paternity. While acknowledging the applicant’s argument about the significance for the child to get to know her biological father, the Supreme Court insisted that the child’s interest was of paramount importance, observed that she was being brought up in a loving family with appropriate means and held that a lawsuit challenging the paternity was not at all in her best interest. The Supreme Court noted that should the child herself wish at one point to start a case with a view to establishing biological paternity, she could do so once she reached fourteen years of age. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the impossibility to have his biological paternity established. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, given that he could not launch proceedings to have his biological paternity established?