CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 juillet 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 88 July-August 2006 Jäggi v. Switzerland - 58757/00 Judgment 13.7.2006 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Refusal to authorise a DNA test on a deceased person requested by putative   son wishing to establish his parentage with certainty: violation   Facts : The applicant was born outside marriage. His putative biological father admitted having had sexual relations with the applicant’s mother, but contested his paternity. He refused to submit to medical tests. A blood-type analysis carried out shortly after his death did not rule out his being the applicant’s father. The applicant took legal steps in order to establish with certainty that the man was in fact his father, as his mother had told him. His request for a DNA test of his putative father’s remains, in order to establish his paternity once and for all, was dismissed by the domestic court on the ground that such a test would make no difference to the applicant’s civil status and that his personality and mental well-being were not seriously threatened by any remaining uncertainty as to his parentage. In addition, there was no public interest at stake and the legitimate family of the deceased, who were opposed to the test, had to be protected. Law : Article 8 – The right to establish one’s ancestry was an integral part of the notion of “private life”, and the proceedings instituted by the applicant were aimed solely at establishing whether a biological link existed between him and his putative father and were not concerned with the applicant’s inheritance rights. There was therefore a direct link between the applicant’s wish to discover his parentage and his private life, and Article 8 was applicable. In weighing up the different interests at stake, consideration had to be given on the one hand to the applicant’s right to establish his ancestry and on the other hand to the right of third parties to the inviolability of the deceased’s body, the right to respect for the dead and the public interest in the protection of legal certainty. In the instant case, the interests at stake were not of sufficient weight to justify depriving the applicant of his right to establish his ancestry. Although the applicant, now aged 67, had been able to develop his personality even in the absence of certainty as to the identity of his biological father, an individual’s interest in discovering his parentage did not disappear with age. Moreover, the applicant had shown a real interest in discovering his father’s identity, since he had tried throughout his life to obtain reliable information on the subject. Such conduct implied moral and mental suffering, even though this had not been medically attested. The family of the deceased had not cited any religious or philosophical reasons for opposing exhumation for the purpose of taking a DNA sample, which was a relatively unintrusive measure. Such exhumation would already have taken place had the applicant not (at his own expense) renewed the lease on the deceased man’s grave. Further, the taking of a DNA sample did not constitute interference with the private life of a deceased person. Finally, under domestic law, the recognition of biological paternity did not affect an individual’s civil status. Conclusion : violation (five votes to two). Article 41 – The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes