CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 juin 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 7 June 1999 Nylund v. Finland (dec.) - 27110/95 Decision 29.6.1999 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Examination of paternity refused on account of distressing effects on child and its family: inadmissible Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations No right to have biological paternity recognised: inadmissible Article 14 Discrimination Legal presumption of husband’s paternity for child born in wedlock: inadmissible The applicant claimed to be the biological father of a child born to his former partner who, at the time of birth, was married to another person. He recognised the child, but his recognition did not get the compulsory approval of the District Court judge, who relied on the legal presumption favouring the husband’s paternity given that the child was born in wedlock. According to the Paternity Act, no appeal lay against this decision. The applicant then instituted proceedings in order to have it determined whether he was the biological father. The District Court found that he had no right of action for the determination of his biological paternity with regard to a child born in wedlock. The Court of Appeal weighed the child’s interests and assessed that the establishment of paternity would cause distress for the child and its family, and hence rejected his appeal. Inadmissible under Article 6: The right to have biological paternity examined by scientific means was not a right recognised by the relevant national law, i.e. the Paternity Act. In so far as the applicant’s action could be understood as a request for the annulment of the husband’s paternity and the establishment of his own, he did not have the right to make such a claim under the Paternity Act. Neither could such a right be derived from Article 8 of the Convention, which is directly applicable in Finland. Therefore, his claim did not concern a right which could arguably be said to be recognised under national law. Article 6 was thereby inapplicable: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 8: The concept of family life extends to the relationship between natural fathers and their children born out of wedlock. In the instant case, although the applicant lived with the mother and was engaged to her at the time she became pregnant, he did not form any emotional bond with the baby who was born after she had married someone else. The applicant’s link with the child was therefore insufficient to fall within the scope of family life. However, it remained to be considered whether the fact that he had been barred from instituting paternity proceedings disclosed a lack of respect for his private life. The Court of Appeal dismissed his action not only on the basis of the Paternity Act but also of the disturbance a paternity examination would cause for the child and its family. It was justifiable for domestic courts to give greater weight to the interests of the child and the family in which it lives rather than the interests of the applicant in obtaining the determination of a biological fact:   manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8: The child’s mother, as well as her husband, had the right to prevent the applicant from having his paternity established on the ground that the child was born after their marriage. Differences between married and unmarried couples remain, notably as regards their legal status and its effects. Thus the applicant was not in a situation analogous with the child’s mother: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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