CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 mai 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. 86 May 2006 Różański v. Poland - 55339/00 Judgment 18.5.2006 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Putative father unable to seek legal paternity by means of a procedure directly accessible to him: violation   Facts : The applicant began living with his partner in 1990 and in 1992 they had a baby boy. In 1994 the applicant’s partner left home and left her son with the applicant. Shortly afterwards the child fell ill and was admitted to hospital. The boy’s mother then removed her son from the hospital and went into hiding with him for several months. The applicant had no more contact with the child but sought to have his paternity recognised in law. He requested a district court to appoint a guardian to represent the child for the purposes of the paternity proceedings. He also requested the public prosecutor to lodge a paternity action on his behalf. In 1995 the prosecutor considered that it would not be advisable for the prosecution authorities to process the applicant’s request, which, if successful, would lead to two parallel sets of proceedings pending at the same time. The applicant eventually withdrew his request to the prosecutor. In 1996 J.M., the mother’s new partner, recognised paternity of the boy and was acknowledged as his legal father. Subsequently, the applicant again asked the district court to appoint a guardian for the purpose of instituting paternity proceedings. The court refused, considering that the applicant had no right of action as J.M. was now the boy’s legal father. Law : The applicant’s link with the child had a sufficient basis in fact to bring the alleged relationship within the scope of family life within the meaning of Article 8(1). Where the existence of a family tie with a child had been established, the State had to act in a manner calculated to enable that tie to be developed and legal safeguards to be created that rendered possible, as from the moment of birth, the child’s integration into his or her family. A crucial aspect of the case was the lack of any directly accessible procedure by which the applicant could claim to have his legal paternity established – the launching of those procedures being completely at the discretion of the authorities. The Court moreover noted the absence, in domestic law, of any guidance as to the exercise of the authorities’ discretionary powers for the purpose of deciding whether to challenge legal paternity established by way of a declaration made by another man. Thirdly, the Court considered the perfunctory manner in which the authorities had exercised their powers when dealing with the applicant’s requests to challenge that paternity. No steps had been taken to establish the actual circumstances of the child, the mother and the applicant. On no occasion had the applicant been interviewed by the authorities in order to have his parental skills established and assessed. Moreover, it had not been examined at all whether in the circumstances of the case the examination of the applicant’s paternity would harm the child’s interests or not. The authorities simply had reiterated in their decisions that the mere fact that the child had been legally recognised by another man was sufficient to turn down the applicant’s requests to have his biological paternity recognised. In those circumstances, the State had failed to secure to the applicant the right to respect for his family life. Conclusion : violation (five votes to two). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant EUR 8,000   in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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