CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 janvier 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 21 February 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 33859/13 Olena Mykolayivna NAUMOVA against Ukraine lodged on 17 May 2013 communicated on 31 January 2022   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings in which the applicant unsuccessfully sought to establish the paternity of her son’s biological father, B. The Chaplynskyy District Court of Kherson Region disregarded the results of a DNA test (ordered by the court) on B.’s blood samples (attesting that the probability that B. was the applicant’s son’s father was 99,999999%) and dismissed the applicant’s claim as ill-founded. In so doing it relied on the procedural rules valid at the time, which required that the parenthood of a child born out of wedlock be established with evidence proving co-habitation of the mother and the father before child’s birth, joint upbringing of the child or child maintenance, or other evidence in support that the putative parent, B. in the present case, admitted his parenthood. That decision was upheld by the higher courts.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the decision of the Chaplynskyy District Court of Kherson Region, upheld by the higher courts, contain adequate and sufficient reasons for dismissal of the applicant’s claim, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), did the decisions of the domestic courts in the impugned proceedings constitute an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (not under Article 6 of the Convention, as claimed by the applicant)? If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 ( mutatis mutandis , Shofman v.   Russia , no.   74826/01, 24 November 2005; Kalacheva v. Russia , no.   3451/05, 7   May 2009; Pascaud v. France , no. 19535/08, 16 June 2011)?