CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juin 2017

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 13 June 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 44690/09 Mehmet Atilla ÇAPIN against Turkey lodged on 13 August 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the paternity proceedings brought by the applicant to have his parental affiliation established with his putative father. On 3   October 2007 the 7 th Family Court of Ankara rejected the lawsuit for not being introduced within the time limits stipulated in Section 303 of the Turkish Civil Code. On 4 May 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. The applicant’s main complaint is that the rejection of the paternity action solely on the basis of the statutory time limits left him in an uncertain state with respect to his personal identity and therefore violated his right to have a fair trial together with his right to respect for family and private life under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the rejection of the applicant’s paternity claim on the basis of the statutory time limits constitute a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family and private life under Article 8 of the Convention (see, Phinikaridou v. Cyprus , no. 23890/02, 20 December 2007; and Turnalı v.   Turkey , no. 4914/03, 7 April 2009)?   2.     Did the 7 th Family Court of Ankara’s refusal to examine the merits of the applicant’s paternity claim impair the applicant’s right of access to court, implicitly guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?