CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 février 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 March 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 57929/19 Georgios VASSILIOU against Romania lodged on 14 October 2019 communicated on 15 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings lodged by the applicant against the child protection authority, the adoptive parents of his alleged daughter, and the child herself, with a view to having that adoption declared null and void and to having his paternity recognised. In those proceedings, the applicant explained that for several years, he had not known about the existence of his daughter who had been conceived when both parents were underaged, had been abandoned at birth by her mother (in 2007), and adopted by the foster parents (in 2010). The adoptive parents had allowed him and the biological mother to meet his daughter on a few occasions, but afterward they opposed contact. He also argued that, in breach of their legal obligations (see Articles   12-14 of Law 272/20054 on the protection and promotion of the rights of the child, and Article 28 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of Law no. 273/2004 on the adoption), the domestic authorities (child protection authority and courts) had consented to his daughter’s adoption without ensuring first that efforts be made in order to identify the child’s biological parents. In their submissions, the adoptive parents and the child opposed the applicant’s requests. The action was dismissed, on the grounds that the adoption had complied with the formal requirements (decision of 18 April 2019 of the Timiş County Court upheld by final decision of 9 July 2019 of the Timişoara Court of Appeal). The applicant complains, under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention, about the conduct of the domestic proceedings at stake and that he is currently unable to obtain recognition of his paternity and to maintain contact with his daughter. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts hear relevant evidence, as requested by the applicant, concerning the validity of the adoption?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Keegan v. Ireland , 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290, Marinis v. Greece , no. 3004/10, §§ 56-57, 9 October 2014, L.D. and P.K. v.   Bulgaria , nos.   7949/11 and 45522/13, § 54, 8 December 2016, and Kautzor v.   Germany , no.   23338/09, § 61, 22 March 2012)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and/or family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, bearing in mind the manner in which the domestic courts examined his request to declare the adoption of his daughter null and void and to establish his paternity? In particular:   (a)     Have the domestic courts identified and taken into account the child’s best interest concerning her adoption and her potential contact with the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis , Zaieţ v. Romania , no. 44958/05, § 48, 24   March 2015, Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, §§   206 ‑ 209, 10 September 2019, and Kautzor v.   Germany , no.   23338/09, §§   66, 73 and 78, 22 March 2012)?   In this connection, the parties are also invited to comment on how the child was represented in the domestic proceedings and whether her representation had an impact on the respect for the applicant’s Article 8 rights (see, mutatis mutandis , C v.   Croatia , no. 80117/17, §§ 76-77, 8 October 2020).   (b)     Does the applicant have any means at his disposal to obtain recognition of his paternity?   (c)     Does the applicant have any means at his disposal to obtain contact rights with his daughter?