CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 mars 1998

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                          Application No. 34572/97                      by Silvano VESDANI                      against Italy                             ___________          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 4 March 1998, the following members being present:             MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President                N. BRATZA                E. BUSUTTIL                A. WEITZEL                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                B. CONFORTI                I. BÉKÉS                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                K. HERNDL                M. VILA AMIGÓ           Mrs. M. HION           Mr.   R. NICOLINI             Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 9 July 1996 by Silvano VESDANI against Italy and registered on 22 January 1997 under file No. 34572/97;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1938 and currently resident in Bournemouth (United Kingdom).        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.        The applicant was born on 3 December 1938 in Rome and registered as the son of a woman who did not wish to reveal her identity. He had been given the name of Silvano VESDANI.        The applicant, who underwent circumcision in the first few years of his life, was subsequently placed in an orphanage. During his childhood, he frequently received visits from a young couple who used to bring expensive gifts to him. However, he never knew the identity of these persons.        From 1988 to December 1996, the applicant addressed many letters and petitions to various Italian authorities - such as the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the Mayor of Rome - seeking the disclosure of his real parents' identity and of the medical records of the first years of his life. He also wrote to the clinic A., where he was presumed to have been born, to the orphanage where he had grown up and to his secondary school, without obtaining the information he was looking for.        On 1 December 1992, the applicant requested the Rome Public Prosecutor's Office to grant him, according to Article 185 of Royal Decree no. 1238/1939, permission to obtain the original and full copy of his birth certificate. On 2 December 1992, the Rome Public Prosecutor granted the requested permission and the applicant was subsequently given a copy of the certificate in question. It reported that on 8 December 1938, one Mrs. K. - who was acting in her capacity as delegate of the director of the above-mentioned clinic A. and was at that time aged of fifty years old - had declared to the Registrar of births, deaths and marriages that on 3 December 1938 a baby was born in Rome to a woman who did not wish to reveal her identity.        The applicant contested the authenticity of this document on many occasions. On 1 February 1993, the Rome City Council informed him that the copy reproduced the original certificate kept in its archives and that the latter could be rectified only by bringing an action before the Rome District Court according to the procedure prescribed by law (Articles 167 ff. of Royal Decree no. 1238/1939). On 13 January 1997, the Rome Public Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that his assertion that the certificate was false could not, as such, be taken into consideration. An investigation could be opened solely on the basis of a detailed statement of the facts raising doubts as to the document's authenticity and indicating the names of witnesses who could confirm them.        The applicant also tried to find Mrs. K., the woman who had made the declaration of birth. In a letter of 18 December 1994, the applicant was informed that Mrs. K. had died in Austria, approximately twenty years earlier.          On 11 November 1996, the administration of the former clinic A. acquainted the applicant with the fact that his medical records were no longer in its possession.   COMPLAINT        The applicant complains about the impossibility to obtain information about the names of his real parents. He alleges that by refusing to co-operate with him, the competent Italian authorities breached his right to respect to family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.   THE LAW        Invoking Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, the applicant complains about the impossibility to obtain information about the names of his real parents.        Article 8 (Art. 8) reads as follows:        "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and      family life, his home and his correspondence.        2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority      with the exercise of this right except such as is in      accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic      society in the interests of national security, public      safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the      prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of      health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and      freedoms of others."        The applicant complains about the treatment to which he has been subjected. He alleges that from his birth until now the competent Italian authorities failed to co-operate with him and constantly tried to hide the information he was seeking.        The Commission first observes that the recognition of the right of individual petition under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention took effect in respect of Italy on 1 August 1973. It recalls that, according to the generally recognised principles of international law, for all Contracting Parties, the Convention governs only facts which arose after it came into force in respect of the Party concerned. Consequently, the circumstances relating to the applicant's birth - and notably the way in which it was registered by the Registrar of births, deaths and marriages -, which date back to December 1938, will not be taken into consideration by the Commission as falling outside its competence ratione temporis.        As to the behaviour of the Italian authorities after 1 August 1973, it is to be noted that the applicant complains about the impossibility to obtain the information and documents he was seeking, namely the original and full copy of his birth certificate indicating the identity of his parents.        The Commission recalls that persons who have been received into care by Public Institutions, such as orphanages, have a vital interest, protected by the Convention, in receiving the information necessary to know and to understand their childhood and early development (see Eur. Court HR, Gaskin v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160, p. 20, para. 49) and that according to its case-law, the failure to issue a birth certificate may imply an interference with the right to respect for family life (Nos. 7823/77-7824/77, Dec. 6.7.77, D.R. 11, pp. 221, 223).        However, it does not appear that in the instant case the applicant has been denied access to any record concerning his childhood and the names of his real parents or that the authorities had tried to hide any information which might be relevant in this respect. The original and full copy of the birth certificate was in fact delivered to him, as on 2 December 1992 the Rome Public Prosecutor granted the permission the applicant had requested. The name of the mother was not mentioned because she had stated she wished not to disclose her identity, and nothing suggests that the Italian authorities were or are aware of it. It is true that the applicant considers that the certificate is false. However, he has failed to introduce an action to rectify the birth certificate before the Rome District Court under Articles 167 ff. of Royal Decree no. 1238/1939, nor has he requested that criminal proceedings be instituted for forgery. In any case, even assuming that the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies on this point, he has not provided the Commission with any factual evidence supporting his assertion and has therefore not substantiated his complaint.        It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.          M.F. BUQUICCHIO                        M.P. PELLONPÄÄ         Secretary                             President    to the First Chamber                  of the First Chamber