Information Note on the Court’s case-law 186
June 2015
Canonne v. France (dec.) - 22037/13
Decision 2.6.2015 [Section V]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Finding of paternity based inter alia on alleged father’s refusal to submit to DNA tests: inadmissible
Facts – In 1982 a married woman who was in the middle of a divorce gave birth to a daughter. At the time she worked in the same group of companies as the applicant. In 1988 she married another man, who acknowledged paternity of the daughter. The couple divorced in 1997. In 2002 the daughter, who had by now attained her majority, brought proceedings against the applicant, seeking a judicial declaration of paternity. The court ordered DNA tests, which the applicant refused to undergo. Faced with this refusal and basing its conclusion on various pieces of evidence, the court found that the applicant was the father.
Before the European Court, the applicant complained, in particular, that the fact of inferring his paternity from his refusal to submit to DNA tests had breached his right to respect for private life.
Law – Article 8: Article 8 of the Convention was applicable to the applicant’s case in two respects. Firstly, in that both the recognition and the setting aside of a parent-child relationship directly affected the identity of the man or woman whose parenthood was in issue. Secondly, in that the taking of a blood sample entailed by the domestic courts’ order for expert evidence amounted to interference with physical integrity, and in that an individual’s genetic data was part of his or her intimate identity. In consequence, the recognition by the domestic courts of a parent-child relationship based, among other things, on the applicant’s refusal to submit to the genetic testing they had ordered amounted to interference in the exercise of his right to respect for his private life. That interference had been in accordance with the law and was intended to guarantee the daughter the full enjoyment of her right to respect for private life, which included not only the right to know her parentage, but also the right to legal recognition of the parent-child relationship.
In several previous cases* the Court had found violations of the rights guaranteed to children by Article 8 on account of domestic courts’ inability to prevent the procedure for a declaration of paternity being hampered by the alleged father’s refusal to undergo DNA tests. The domestic courts’ finding in the present case had been in line with that case-law.
In the present case, the person attempting to establish that the applicant was her father was already an adult when she brought the domestic proceedings. However, although it followed that the best interests of the child had not been at stake, this did not weaken her right under Article 8 to know who her parents were and to have that fact recognised, a right which did not cease to exist over time.
Moreover, in establishing the parent-child relationship, the domestic courts had not relied solely on the applicant’s refusal to submit to the genetic testing that had been ordered. In addition to the written comments and statements from each of the parties before them, they had taken into account documents and witness statements. The refusal was only an “additional piece of evidence”, which merely confirmed a conclusion that had already partly been established in the light of the other evidence. In finding as they did, the domestic courts had not exceeded the wide margin of appreciation available to them.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
(See also the Factsheet on Children's Rights, under the heading “Right to know one’s origins”)
* Mikulić v. Croatia, 53176/99, 7 February 2002, Information Note 39; and Ebru and Tayfun Engin Çolak v. Turkey, 60176/00, 30 May 2006.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy