CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 novembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 91 November 2006 Tavlı v. Turkey - 11449/02 Judgment 9.11.2006 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Refusal of retrial to challenge paternity   finding because scientific progress (DNA test) was not a valid ground for such a challenge: violation   Facts : Soon after his wife gave birth, the applicant had doubts about the child's paternity and filed an action for rejection of paternity. His claim was dismissed, the court relying, in particular, on the results of a blood test which concluded that he could be the child's father, and on the fact that the child was born in wedlock. When DNA testing became more widespread, the applicant had a test carried out which concluded that he could not be her father. Relying on the findings of the DNA test, the applicant requested annulment of the judicial decision and a retrial. Even in the absence of any doubts as to the accuracy of the test, the court dismissed the applicant's request for a retrial. It held that in order to have a retrial, the newly obtained evidence must   have been existent at the time of the original proceedings and must have been inaccessible due to force majeure . Scientific progress could not be considered as force majeure . Law : The Government did not give any reason why it should be “necessary in a democratic society” to refuse the applicant's request to have a retrial, irrespective of the technological difficulty   of conducting DNA testing in 1982, when he first filed the action for rejection of paternity. Just as   the applicant has a legitimate right to have at least the opportunity to deny paternity of a child who, according to scientific evidence, is not his own, the child   also has an interest in knowing the identity of her biological father. The fact that the applicant was prevented from disclaiming paternity because scientific progress was not considered to be valid grounds for a retrial under the Code of Civil Procedure is not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. Domestic courts should interpret the existing legislation in light of scientific progress and the social repercussions that follow. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. See also Mizzi v. Malta (no. 26111/02, 12 January 2006) in Information Note no. 82.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes