CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sE872AC7E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 }     Communicated on 18 December 2013   THIRD SECTION Application no. 43111/10 Patman MODEBADZE against Georgia lodged on 16 July 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS   1.     The applicant, Ms Patman Modebadze, who was born in 1983, is a Georgian national and lives in the village of Khreiti, Tchiatura Region, Georgia. She is represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Robakidze, a lawyer practicing in Tbilisi. A.     The circumstances of the cases 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, concern her unsuccessful attempt to have civil paternity established for her minor child, who was born out of wedlock on 3 May 2007, on the basis of DNA blood tests. 3.     Notably, on 6 November 2009 the Kutaisi Court of Appeals, after a series of remittals of the case between various levels of jurisdiction, refused to accept the results of a DNA test which confirmed the biological bloodline between the applicant’s child and the respondent putative father for a procedural reason. The final decision in those proceedings, which resulted in the rejection of the applicant’s claim, was delivered by the Supreme Court of Georgia on 22 March 2010. B.     Relevant domestic law 4.     Prior to 20 December 2011, Article 1190 § 3 of the Civil Code read as follows: Article 1190 § 3 “When establishing paternity, the court shall have regard to whether the mother and the respondent [putative father] have cohabitated and jointly kept a household prior to the birth of the child or have contributed together to the upbringing and nurture of the child or to a document which proves with sufficient certainty that the fact of paternity has been conceded to by the respondent.” 5.     On 20 December 2011 Article 1190 of the Civil Code, notably its paragraphs 3 and 4, were amended in order for the results of a DNA test to become the foremost ground for the establishment of civil paternity, followed by such other factors as those which had been mentioned in the previous version of Article 1190 § 3 of the Civil Code: Article 1190 §§ 3 and 4 “The court shall establish paternity on the basis of the results (evidence) of a biological (genetic) or anthropological examination. If it is not possible to establish paternity on the basis of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 3, the court shall have regard to whether the mother and the respondent [putative father] have cohabitated and jointly kept a household prior to the birth of the child or have contributed together to the upbringing and nurture of the child or to a document or factual circumstances which prove with sufficient certainty that the fact of paternity has been conceded to by the respondent.” COMPLAINTS 6.     Invoking in substance Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the domestic courts’ refusal to accept the DNA test results as the basis for the establishment of legal paternity for her minor child. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Given the domestic courts’ refusal to establish paternity for the applicant’s minor child, has there been a violation of her right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?