CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mai 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }     Communicated on 18 May 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 76594/11 Yevgeniy Anatolyevich ROMANOV against Russia lodged on 27 October 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Anatolyevich Romanov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Volgograd. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 18 August 1995 the applicant’s girlfriend A. gave birth to a son., S. On 15 May 1997 the applicant formally acknowledged his paternity of S. and was registered as his father in S.’s birth certificate. On 11 April 2002 the applicant and A. were deprived of parental authority over S. and his maternal grandmother R. was appointed as his guardian. On 2 November 2010 A. told the applicant that he was not S.’s father. A DNA paternity test confirmed that he was not S.’s biological father. The applicant brought a court action contesting his paternity of S. On 21 March 2011 the Gorodichshenskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region allowed the applicant’s claims and terminated his paternity of S. On 26 May 2011 the Volgograd Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and rejected the applicant’s claims. It noted that the case was governed by the RSFSR Marriage and Family Code of 30 July 1969 because the child had been born before 1 March 1996, that is to say before the new Family Code of the Russian Federation came into effect. The RSFSR Marriage and Family Code set a one-year limitation period for an action contesting paternity, the starting point of which was calculated from the date the putative father was informed that he had been registered as the father. The applicant had voluntary acknowledged his paternity of S. in 1997. He had brought a court action contesting his paternity in 2010, that is after the expiry of the one-year time-limit. His action was therefore time-barred. B.     Relevant domestic law The RSFSR Marriage and Family Code of 30 July 1969 provided that a person entered in the birth register as the father of a child could contest the paternity within one year of the date he became or should have become aware that the entry had been made (Article 49). The Family Code of the Russian Federation of 29 December 1995 (in force from 1 March 1996) provides that maternity or paternity of a child may be contested before a court by the person who is recorded in the child’s birth certificate as his/her mother or father, by the child’s biological mother or father, by the child himself/herself once he/she attains the age of majority, by the child’s guardian or, if the child’s parent is legally incapable, by the parent’s guardian (Article 52 § 1). It does not set any time-limit for bringing an action. Resolution no. 9 of the Plenary Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 25 October 1996 “On application by courts of the Family Code of the Russian Federation to the cases concerning paternity and maintenance” established that, in respect of children born before 1 March 1996, the RSFSR Marriage and Family Code was applicable and, accordingly, the time-limit for contesting paternity was one year from the date the person became or should have become aware of his registration as the child’s parent. A court may deprive a parent of parental authority if he or she avoids the parental obligations, such as the obligation to pay child maintenance; refuses to collect the child from the maternity hospital, any other medical, educational, social or similar institution; abuses the parental rights; mistreats the child by resorting to physical or psychological violence or sexual abuse; suffers from chronic alcohol or drug abuse; or has committed a premeditated criminal offence against the life or health of his/her children or spouse (Articles 69). The parent deprived of parental authority retains the obligation to support the child financially. The child retains property rights, including inheritance rights, to the housing and other belongings obtained as a result of his relation to the parent deprived of parental authority. The child also retains inheritance rights in respect of that parent’s property (Article 71 §§ 2 and 4). COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his action to contest paternity was held to be time-barred under the law in force at the material time.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the domestic courts’ refusal to terminate the applicant’s paternity, despite the finding that he had not been the biological father of the child, violate his right to respect for his private and family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? In particular, given that the law in force at the material time established an inflexible time-limit for contesting paternity with time running irrespective of the putative father’s awareness of the circumstances casting doubt on his paternity and made no exceptions to the application of that time-limit for situations where the putative father became aware of the biological reality only after the expiry of the time-limit, did the Respondent State secure to the applicant the respect for his private life (see Shofman v. Russia , no. 74826/01, 24   November 2005)?