CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 mars 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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   192 10.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ANAKOMBA YULA v. BELGIUM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Anakomba Yula v. Belgium (application no. 45413/07), concerning a decision to refuse legal aid for an action to contest paternity.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 288.17   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in French. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Cecile Anakomba Yula, is a Congolese national who was born in 1972 and lives in Koekelberg (Belgium). Given that she was unlawfully resident in Belgium, she applied in June 2006 for regularisation of her residence status.   Her estranged husband, M.L., who is also a Congolese national, was lawfully resident in the country, as were her children.   In order for the biological father of her youngest child to be able to recognise the latter’s paternity, Ms Anakomba Yula was required to bring an action against M.L. to contest his paternity of the child. She submitted a request for legal aid, seeking exemption from payment of the costs related to those proceedings.   Her request was dismissed on the ground that she was unlawfully resident in Belgium and that her action was not aimed at regularising her situation. In June 2007 the appeal court upheld that decision, emphasising that the “discrimination” referred to by the applicant was a reasonable difference in treatment, and was based on the objective criterion of lawful residence, indicating a minimal tangible connection with Belgium.   With regard to the action to contest paternity, the first-instance court found that Ms Anakomba Yula had provided the evidence on non-paternity required under Congolese law. However, it ordered the applicant to pay the fees.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 October 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), President , Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 and Article 14, Ms Anakomba Yula complained that she had had to bear the costs of her action to contest paternity, after failing to obtain legal aid because she did not have a valid residence permit.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1, taken together with Article 14   Although the Court reiterated that the right of access to a court was not absolute and that the State had a free choice of the means to be used towards this end, it emphasised that a limitation on access to a court must not impair the very essence of that right.   The Court noted that this case concerned serious issues related to family law that were decisive for Ms Anakomba Yula and other individuals. In such circumstances, there ought to have been particularly compelling reasons to justify the difference in treatment between individuals with a residence permit and those without one, the explanation put forward by the Belgian courts to justify their refusal to grant the applicant legal aid.   The Court also noted that Ms Anakomba Yula had taken steps to regularise her situation prior to the expiry of her residence permit, in the context of her life with her daughter’s father, a Belgian national.   The Court further noted that it had been essential to act quickly, since actions to contest paternity had to be lodged before the child’s first birthday.   Accordingly, the Court considered that the Belgian State had failed in its obligation to regulate the right of access to a court in a manner that was compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1, taken together with Article 14.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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 Convention, 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. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.