CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 5 January 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 30205/25 S.T. against Slovenia lodged on 22 September 2025 communicated on 11 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns, inter alia , the alleged inadequacy of measures taken by domestic courts to establish paternity. At the time of X’s birth in 2009, the applicant was registered as her father with the agreement of both himself and the mother. In 2013, X (represented by her mother) brought a lawsuit to challenge the applicant’s paternity. Both the mother and X refused the applicant’s request for X’s DNA testing, offering no plausible explanation for their refusal. Since the law did not allow for compulsory testing at that time, no genetic evidence was obtained from X. During the proceedings, X attempted to withdraw her claim. As the applicant opposed the withdrawal of the claim, the proceedings continued. In 2022 the applicant consented to the claim. In 2023 the Ljubljana District Court dismissed X’s lawsuit on the ground that it was not in X’s best interests for the applicant to cease being regarded as her father in view of the fact that it had not been established with certainty that he was not her biological father. The applicant lodged an appeal disputing the findings of the Ljubljana District Court and arguing that the DNA test should have been carried out. The Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed his appeal, holding that, in the circumstances, X’s interest in preserving the existing family situation prevailed over the applicant’s right to ascertain the existence of a biological paternal link. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging a violation of the right to judicial protection, a violation of his personality rights and the right to protection of family life. He also lodged a petition for review of constitutionality of the relevant provisions in the Civil Procedure Act which had – at the time the claim had been lodged – not allowed for the use of compulsive measures to ensure the performance of a DNA test. He also emphasised that had the case been remitted, new legal provisions of the Non ‑ Litigious Civil Procedure Act allowing for compulsory DNA would apply and he would be able to establish the truth about his biological tie to X based on the DNA test. Without a remittal, he would be deprived – given the expiry of the statute of limitations – of any opportunity to challenge his alleged paternity of X. On 5   June 2025 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s remedies finding that he had no legal interest in the proceedings. The decision was served on the applicant on 26   June 2025. The applicant complains under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention that the restrictions on his access to the Constitutional Court were not justified and that the very essence of his right of access to court was impaired. He further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the respondent State failed to fulfil its positive obligation to provide “a practical and effective procedural framework for resolving the uncertainty surrounding his paternity”, alleging that this question relates to the core element of his identity and family life with significant, including legal, consequences. He has been permanently deprived of the possibility to ascertain whether he is X’s father. In this connection the applicant alleges that he could have not himself initiated separate paternity proceedings due to the principle of lis penden s, as the issue was already being litigated in the proceedings brought by X.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant’s access to the Constitutional Court unjustifiably restricted, in violation of his right of access to court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and/or family life contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention, and to the fact that the applicant was unable to establish his biological paternity, or the absence thereof, through DNA testing in the proceedings instituted by X, did the domestic courts strike a fair balance between the competing interests, and were the proceedings accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to protect the applicant’s interests (see Mikulić v. Croatia , no. 53176/99, §§ 53 and 59, ECHR 2002-I, and Koychev v. Bulgaria , no. 32495/15, §§ 55-58, and, mutatis mutandis , §§ 60-68, 13   October 2020)?