CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 2 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 20097/15 Ilie LAZĂR against Romania lodged on 16 April 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns limitations imposed by law to bringing an action to contest the paternity of a child born in wedlock. In 2013, three   years after his divorce, the applicant found out that he might not be the biological father of the child born in 2006 during his marriage to his former spouse. Contacted by the applicant, the mother’s doctor refused to release medical data to confirm or dismiss his suspicion. The applicant brought an action to repudiate his child. It was dismissed as out of time in a final decision of 10 March 2015 of the Neamţ County Court. The court reiterated that such an action must be brought within six   month from the day when the husband became aware of the birth. It considered that the applicant could not justify why he had not observed that time-limit. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, insofar as the Neamţ County Court dismissed his action as out of time, without examining it on the merits (see , mutatis mutandis , Mizzi v.   Malta , no. 26111/02, §§ 49 and 71-91, ECHR 2006 ‑ I (extracts))?   2.   Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, insofar as the applicant was unable to contest his legal paternity of the child (see, notably, Ostace v.   Romania , no. 12547/06, §§ 42-52, 25 February 2014; Tavlı v.   Turkey , no.   11449/02, §§ 31-38, 9 November 2006; and Doktorov v.   Bulgaria , no.   15074/08, §§ 17-34, 5 April 2018)?