CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2025

.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 31 March 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 2714/25 Lilian KAKAI and Martin Vennerstrøm JENSEN against Denmark lodged on 22 January 2025 communicated on 12 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a refusal to re-open paternity proceedings. The first applicant cohabited with a man (F1) from 2017 until September 2018. In October   2018 the first applicant became aware that she was pregnant. She contacted F1, who participated in the childbirth preparations, and the couple re-cohabited as from April 2019. The child was born on 12   July 2019. F1 was registered as the child’s father. The couple separated in December   2019. In March 2020, stating that another man than F1 could be the genetic father, the first applicant requested the Family Court to reopen the paternity proceedings. Her request was refused by a decision, which became final on 5   October 2021. F1 continued to have contact with the child, whom he treated as his own. In the spring of 2022, the first applicant and the second applicant had a DNA test performed, showing that the probability of the second applicant being the genetic father was higher than 99.99%. The second applicant commenced to have contact with the child, whom he treated as his own. Around June 2022, the applicants requested a reopening of the paternity proceedings. Their request was refused by a final decision of 8 October 2024 by the Supreme Court, which found that the DNA test could not in itself lead to the paternity case being reopened. Instead, an overall assessment had to be made, including the best interest of the child and its relationship with F1. The applicants complained that the refusal to reopen the paternity case was in breach of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the refusal by the Supreme Court to reopen the paternity case compatible with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life as defined by Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, R.L.   and   Others v. Denmark , no. 52629/11, 7 March 2017)?