CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5CD26361 { font-family:Arial; color:#008000 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   375 07.05.09   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KALACHEVA v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kalacheva v. Russia (application no. 3451/05).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the State’s failure to order a second DNA test for the purpose of establishing the identity of the father of Ms Kalacheva’s child.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Anna Kalacheva, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Astrakhan.   In September 2003 she gave birth to a child out of wedlock. In November 2003 she brought civil proceedings against Mr A. before the Kirovskiy district court of Astrakhan in order to establish paternity and obtain child maintenance.   In December 2003, the court ordered a DNA test. Blood samples were thus collected in Astrakhan and sent to a specialised institute in Moscow for a forensic genetic examination. According to the expert’s conclusion, delivered in March 2004, there was a 99% probability that Mr A. was the father of Ms Kalacheva’s child.   Mr A. contested the test results arguing that there had been procedural shortcomings. Having heard both parties, in June 2004, the court rejected Ms Kalacheva’s claim in full, as it found that she had failed to prove it.   Ms Kalacheva appealed unsuccessfully. The appeal court found in particular that an expert conclusion was not binding on the court, and that in the present case the DNA test, carried out in breach of the relevant procedure, was not supported by other evidence. Ms Kalacheva’s lawyer brought an application for supervisory review, which was rejected by the Supreme Court.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 December 2004 and examined together for admissibility and merits on 14 April 2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Rait Maruste (Estonia), President , Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Renate Jaeger (Germany), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), judges , and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying in particular on Article   8, Ms Kalacheva complained that the domestic courts had failed to establish the paternity of her daughter’s biological father regardless of the results of a DNA test.   Decision of the Court   The Court first noted that Ms Kalacheva was the sole legal guardian of her child. It had therefore been essential to her, not least from emotional, social and financial stand point, to have the courts establish who her child’s father was. Consequently, Ms Kalacheva’s complaint related to her private life and thus fell to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention.   The domestic judicial authorities had faced a conflict between the competing interests of Ms Kalacheva, as the mother of a child born out of wedlock, and the interests of the alleged father. The Court observed that it had been crucial to obtain the results of a DNA test in order to solve the dispute in the best interest of the child, as DNA testing had been the only scientific method for determining accurately the paternity of the child.   Given that the results of a first DNA test carried out for the purpose of establishing paternity of Ms Kalacheva’s child had been found inadmissible for procedural reasons, a second DNA test had been necessary. The Court noted that in accordance with the Russian Civil Procedural Code it had been up to the domestic courts to order a second DNA test if the reliability of the results of an earlier one had been doubted. This had been of particular importance in the present case since the procedural irregularities had appeared to have been attributable to the institute for forensic medical examination, which was a state institution.   Given that the domestic court had not ordered a second DNA test, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8.   ***   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.