CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 octobre 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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 11 October 1999 Yildirim v. Austria (dec.) - 34308/96 Decision 19.10.1999 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Absence of right for father to have proceedings to contest paternity instituted by public prosecutor: inadmissible Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Refusal to contest presumption of paternity: inadmissible The applicant, a Turkish national, married an Austrian national already expecting a baby who he knew was not his. The applicant and the mother being married at the time of birth, the legal presumption of paternity provided for in the Austrian Civil Code applied to him. He allegedly realised this only when he and his wife started divorce proceedings more than a year later, by which time the time-limit within which he could contest the child’s legitimacy had expired. The applicant made use of the possibility offered by law of requesting the public prosecutor after expiry of the time-limit to institute proceedings to contest the paternity of the child. His request, however, was rejected on the ground that the denunciation of his paternity would threaten the child’s interests, the natural father being unknown and the mother relying on her maintenance claim against the applicant to bring up the child. The applicant's further appeals were to no avail. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: A public prosecutor may contest a child’s legitimacy following the expiry of the one-year time-limit when he considers that either the public interest or the interests of the child or its descendants justify such action. However, according to the wording of the provision and the domestic courts' decisions, the applicant did not have a right to have such proceedings instituted by the public prosecutor once his own action was time-barred: incompatible ratione materiae . Inadmissible under Article 8: In a similar case (Rasmussen v. Denmark judgment of 28.11.84), in which a husband wished to institute proceedings to contest the paternity of a child born in wedlock, the question was left open whether there was “family life” in such instances because of the finding that the matter in any case undoubtedly concerned “private life”. As regards the issue raised by the instant case, there are legitimate reasons relating both to a need for legal certainty and to the security of family relationships to apply a general presumption of paternity to a married man with regard to his wife’s children. It appears reasonable for the public prosecutor to give more weight to the child’s interests than to those of the applicant when deciding whether to institute proceedings to contest the child’s legitimacy. Consequently, the public prosecutor’s refusal did not disclose a lack of respect for the applicant’s private life: 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