CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }       FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15978/09 Igor Viktorovych YAKUSHEV against Ukraine lodged on 7 March 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Igor Viktorovych Yakushev, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in the town of Malyn, Ukraine. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 17 November 1993 M. gave birth to K. On 2 December 1993 the applicant was registered as her father following his own request lodged together with M.’s similar request. On 23 March 2000 the applicant married M. They divorced in 2006. In July 2006 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Malynskyy District Court against M. challenging the registry record that he was the father of K. On 24 March 2008 the court found for the applicant referring to a genetic expert opinion, according to which the applicant’s paternity of K. was excluded. M. appealed stating that since January 1993 she had lived together with the applicant without being married. On 29 May 2008 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal quashed the first instance court decision and found against the applicant referring to section 56 of the Family and Marriage Code. The court held that at the moment of the K.’s birth, the applicant and M. had not been married and had not lived together (in particular, between February and April 1993 the applicant lived in another town), and the applicant had been married to another woman. Therefore, “at the moment of lodging the request to register the applicant as K.’s father, he had been aware that he was not the father of K.”. The applicant appealed stating that it was unclear how the court of appeal had reached the conclusion that he had been aware at the material time that he had not been K.’s father. On 9 September 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. B.     Relevant domestic law Part 2 of Section 56 of the Marriage and Family Code of Ukraine, in force at the material time, provided that a person registered as a child’s father following his own request or his joined request lodged together with the child’s mother, does not have a right to challenge his paternity if at that time he was aware that he was not the child’s father. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention about the rejection of his claim to challenge his paternity of K.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, by the court’s rejection of his paternity challenge claim?