CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 novembre 2005

.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. 80 November 2005 Shofman v. Russia - 74826/01 Judgment 24.11.2005 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Proceedings disclaiming presumed paternity held to be time-barred under domestic law: violation   Facts : The applicant’s wife gave birth to a son in 1995. The applicant was registered as the child’s father. In 1996 the applicant moved to Germany, and the following year his wife informed him that the marriage was over and that she would be applying for maintenance for the child. At about that time the applicant’s relatives advised him that he was not the boy’s father. The applicant petitioned for divorce and brought an action contesting paternity in December 1997. On the basis of the results of DNA tests, the District Court found it established that the applicant could not be the boy’s father but nevertheless ruled that his action was time-barred. The court relied on the Marriage and Family Code of 30 July 1969, which set a one-year limitation period for a paternity action (to be calculated from the date when the putative father was informed that he had been registered as the father). The judgment was upheld on appeal. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, in that proceedings to disclaim his presumed paternity were held to be time-barred under the law in force at the material time. Law : Article 8 – Applicability : In cases concerning a husband wishing to institute proceedings to contest the paternity of a child born in wedlock, the Court has previously left open the question whether the paternity proceedings concerned the applicant’s “family life”, finding that, in any event, the determination of the father’s legal relations with his putative child concerned his “private life”. Hence, the case fell within the ambit of Article 8. Compliance : The introduction of a time-limit for the institution of paternity proceedings could be justified by the desire to ensure legal certainty in family relations and to protect the interests of the child. So far, the Court had only been confronted with cases where the applicant had known with certainty, or had had grounds for assuming, that he was not the father from the first day of the child’s life but – for reasons unconnected with the law – had taken no steps to contest paternity within the statutory time-limit ( Yildirim v. Austria and Rasmussen v. Denmark ). The situation in the present case was, however, different because the applicant had not suspected that the child was not his and reared him as his own for some two years after birth. The applicant would have had a right under domestic law to contest paternity had he lodged the action within one year after the birth. However, the domestic law in force at the material time made no exceptions to that time-limit, and thus made no allowance for husband’s in the applicant’s situation who did not become aware of the biological reality until more than a year after the registration of the birth. The Government had not given any reasons why it should have been “necessary in a democratic society” to establish such an inflexible time-limit. The fact that the applicant was prevented from disclaiming paternity because he did not discover that he might not be the father until more than a year after he had learnt of the birth had not been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. Hence, despite the respondent State’s margin of appreciation, it had failed to secure respect for the applicant’s private life. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award for costs and expenses.   © 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