CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s817F5625 { width:113.76%; border-collapse:collapse } .sEDF7A3AF { width:6.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sC590A1FB { width:25%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA58AE15E { width:24.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD6B50B0D { width:18.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEFE6513B { width:25.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9FAEB576 { width:6.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s30ADBAC4 { width:25%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9540FE80 { width:24.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDA48E3F3 { width:18.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE04EA7FA { width:25.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 16 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23044/19 Burçin PINAR and Others against Türkiye lodged on 20 April 2019 communicated on 30 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings instituted by a mother (the first applicant) against the alleged biological father of her twin children (the second and third applicants) to establish paternity and obtain child maintenance. On 5 September 2014 the second and third applicants were born out of wedlock in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. On 24   September 2014 the first applicant filed a civil case against the alleged biological father in which she sought to establish paternity and obtain child maintenance. On 31   May 2016 the Girne Family Court dismissed the case based on witness statements and some documents presented by parties to prove or disprove biological paternity. In its decision, the family court refused to draw any conclusions from the alleged father’s rejection to undergo a DNA test despite his previous agreement to do so. On 24 October 2018 the Court of Cassation upheld the family court`s decision. Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicants complain about the domestic courts’ assessment of their paternity claims. The applicants, in particular, complain that the domestic courts failed to take into account the alleged biological father’s rejection to undergo a DNA test while deciding on their claims. Further, under Article 13 read in conjunction with 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the domestic courts failed to order the alleged biological father to undergo a compulsory DNA test. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and/or family lives under Article 8 of the Convention having regard to the alleged lack of diligence of the domestic courts in handling the civil proceedings, in particular, due to their refusal to take into account the alleged biological father’s rejection to undergo a DNA test? Have the courts reached a fair balance of the interests involved, in particular, having regard to the best interests of the second and third applicants (see Mikulić v.   Croatia, no.   53176/99, §§ 64-66, ECHR 2002‑I; Ebru and Tayfun Engin Çolak v.   Turkey , no. 60176/00, §§ 94-96, 30 May 2006; Moldovan v.   Ukraine no.   62020/14, §§ 46-54, 14 March 2024; and Canonne v. France (dec.), no.   22037/13, 2 June 2015)?   APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Burçin PINAR 1977 Turkish Girne 2. Armin PINAR 2014 Turkish Girne 3. Aras PINAR 2014 Turkish Girne