CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2026

.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 } Published on 2 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 10631/24 Dana-Roxana BELEAN against Romania lodged on 2 April 2024 communicated on 13 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns judicial proceedings lodged by the applicant aimed at having the paternity of her biological father recognised. The applicant (born in 1985) was adopted at the age of one year. After learning from the adoptive parents that she had been adopted, the applicant met her biological mother who revealed to her the identity of her biological father, B.L. On 5 October 2021, the applicant lodged an action with the Brașov District Court seeking to establish that B.L. was her biological father and to make this mention in her birth certificate. B.L. denied the paternity and refused to submit to a DNA test. In the initial judgment, the applicant’s action was partially granted, the first instance court found B.L. to be the father but dismissed the claim regarding the amendment of the birth certificate. The court based its ruling on witness statements (including the biological mother’s) while also considering that the defendant’s refusal to submit to the DNA test, corroborated with the other evidence, could be interpreted as confirming his paternity. B.L. filed an appeal, in which he mainly reiterated his substantive defences submitted before the first instance court without raising any objections regarding the legality of the judgment. On 29 December 2023, the Brașov County Court granted the appeal, quashed the judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim as inadmissible, without formally submitting an objection of inadmissibility to the parties’ debate. In the reasoning of the final decision, the appellate court held, in essence, that another filiation could not be established with respect to another father, as long as paternity had been established through the effects of adoption more than 37 years prior. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of her right to obtain information in order to discover one’s origins and the identity of one’s parents as an integral part of identity protected under the right to private and family life. Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains about the conduct of the appellate court which based its decision on an inadmissibility ground raised of its own motion, which it did not submit to the parties’ debate. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, has the manner in which the domestic courts examined the applicant’s request to have the paternity of her natural father recognised amount to a violation of her right to personal identity, that includes the right to know the identity of one’s parents (see Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003 ‑ III; Mikulić v. Croatia , no. 53176/99, §§ 54 and 64, ECHR 2002; and A.M.M.   v.   Romania , no. 2151/10, §§ 51-65 14 February 2012)? Does the applicant have any procedural means at her disposal to obtain recognition of her biological paternity?   2.     Is Article 6 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings initiated by the applicant? In the affirmative, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the appellate court respect the adversarial principle, when it dismissed the case on the basis of a ground which it has raised of its own motion and which was not submitted to the parties’ debate (see Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium [GC], no.   49812/09, §§ 135-36, 3 November 2022)?