CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 juin 2011

.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. 142 June 2011 Krušković v. Croatia - 46185/08 Judgment 21.6.2011 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Inability of father divested of his legal capacity to acknowledge paternity of his child: violation   Facts – In 2003 the applicant was divested of his legal capacity due to a personality disorder resulting from long-term drug abuse. In 2007 a certain K.S. gave birth to a daughter and identified the applicant as the child’s father. Subsequently, the applicant gave a statement at the local birth registry acknowledging his paternity and was registered as the father. However, once the competent social-welfare centre informed the birth registry that the applicant had been divested of his legal capacity, that entry was annulled. In 2010 the local welfare centre brought an action against the applicant, K.S. and the child seeking establishment of the applicant’s paternity and those proceedings were still pending at the time the European Court gave its judgment. Law – Article 8: Even though restrictions in the sphere of private and family life on the rights of persons divested of their legal capacity could not in principle be regarded as contradictory to Article 8, such restrictions should be subject to relevant procedural safeguards. In the applicant’s case, he had been unable to recognise his paternity before the national authorities or to institute any proceedings to prove paternity. Only the competent social-welfare centre could have instituted such proceedings, but there was no legal obligation or time-limit under national law for the centre to do so. Consequently, the applicant had been left in a legal void until the proceedings for the establishment of his paternity were finally instituted, some two and a half years after he had urged the social-welfare centre to do so. By ignoring his claims that he was the biological father of the child, the State had failed to discharge its positive obligation to guarantee his right to respect for private and family life. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 1,800 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