CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 mai 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1CC9F8DC { width:86.12pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s97C4B4C1 { width:44pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   287 18.5.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece and   Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1]   One length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Różański v. Poland (application no. 55339/00)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Stanisław Różański, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Gdańsk.   The applicant began living with his partner in 1990 and in August 1992 they had a baby boy. The boy’s father was registered as “Stanisław F.”, a fictitious name, consisting of the applicant’s first name and the mother’s surname.   In April 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 hospital and went into hiding with him for several months. The applicant had no more contact with the child.   Subsequently, the applicant made efforts in order to have his putative biological paternity recognised in law. He requested the Gdańsk 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 a reply of 5 May 1995, the prosecutor refused to do so, recalling that the applicant had requested the civil court to appoint a guardian for the child for the purpose of instituting the paternity proceedings. He considered that it would not be advisable for the prosecuting authorities to consider the applicant’s request, which, if successful, would lead to two parallel sets of proceedings pending at the same time, both concerning the determination of the applicant’s paternity. The applicant eventually withdrew that request in November 1995.   Later, in July 1996, J.M., the mother’s new partner, recognised paternity of the child and was acknowledged as the child’s legal father.   Subsequently, the applicant again asked the District Court to appoint a guardian for the purpose of instituting paternity proceedings. It was refused, the court considering that the applicant had no right of action since following the declaration it was J.M. who was the boy’s legal father. The applicant’s subsequent requests were summarily dismissed on the same ground.   The applicant, who claims to be the boy’s biological father, complained that he was prevented from officially recognising his son. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights was   of the view that 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. It reiterated that 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.   The Court found that 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. Secondly, the Court noted the absence, in domestic law, of any guidance as to the manner in which discretionary powers vested in the authorities to decide whether to challenge legal paternity established by way of a declaration made by another man should be exercised. Thirdly, the Court considered the perfunctory manner in which the authorities exercised their powers when dealing with the applicant’s requests to challenge that paternity. No steps were taken to establish the actual circumstances of the child, the mother and the applicant. On no occasion was the applicant interviewed by the authorities in order to have his parental skills established and assessed.   Moreover, it was not 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 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 the light of those circumstances, the Court concluded that the State had failed to secure to the applicant the respect for his family life to which he was entitled under the Convention.   The Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded the applicant 8,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length of proceedings case   In the following case the 91 applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of administrative proceedings. They invoked amongst others Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece (no 27278/03) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press Contacts     Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.