CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 10 May 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 58994/16 Inge LOHMANN against Germany lodged on 6 October 2016 communicated on 15 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s unsuccessful court proceedings to establish her biological ties with her supposed father. The applicant was an adult at the time of the proceedings and she did not intend to determine her legal relationship with her supposed father. The applicant relies on Article 8 of the Convention alone and read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention arguing that she was discriminated against compared to children born in wedlock. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? In particular, did the domestic courts strike a fair balance between the applicant’s and the father’s interests by taking into consideration the circumstances of the individual case?   2.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 8 read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   In particular, did the applicant invoke before the national courts, at least in substance, the claim that she had been discriminated against compared to children born in wedlock? In this context, was it sufficient to refer in the constitutional complaint only to the decision of the Hamm Court of Appeal, dated 23 October 2013?   3.     If so, has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?