Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)195
Paulik against Slovak Republic
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 10699/05, judgment of 10 October 2006, final on 10 January 2007)
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2013
at the 1179th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, (see document DH-DD(2013)847);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
ACTION REPORT
Application No. 10699/05 Paulík v. Slovakia
judgment of 10/10/2006, final on 10/01/2007
Introductory case summary
This case concerns a violation of the right to respect for private life of the applicant due to the impossibility, in 2004, of challenging his paternity which had been established by a court in 1970, notwithstanding the fact that according to DNA tests conducted in 2004 he was not the father of the child (violation of Article 8). It also concerned the difference in treatment between the applicant, who, due to the fact that his paternity had been established by a court, had no procedure by which he could challenge the declaration of his paternity, and others in a similar situation who (if paternity was only presumed by marriage or declaration) were able to access a procedure to challenge paternity (violation of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 8).
I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Just satisfaction
In its judgment, the European Court awarded to the applicant non-pecuniary damage and compensation for the cost and expenses (§ 72 and § 75). The due sums were paid on 15 February 2007.
b) Other individual measures
In its judgment, the European Court noted that the applicant could request the reopening of the proceedings under Articles 228 § 1(d) and 230 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under these provisions, a party in the proceedings can request reopening of the proceedings if the European Court has found a violation and if the consequences of the violation have not been adequately redressed by the award of just satisfaction. The possibility of reopening the domestic proceedings is subject to a time-limit of three months as of the final judgment of the European Court.
On 26/01/2007 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a petition for reopening of the paternity proceedings with the Bratislava IV District Court under Article 228 § 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 03/10/2007 the Bratislava I District Court delivered its decision in the reopened paternity proceedings. On 02/04/2008 the Nitra Register Office amended the record in the birth register, removing the reference to the applicant as the father. Subsequently, a new birth certificate of the child has been issued in which the applicant is not registered as the father and in the column “father” the word “unknown” is marked.
The Government consider that no other individual measures appear necessary.
II. General measures:
a) Publication and dissemination
The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) No. 2/2007.
b) Legislative measures
In order to address the violations found by the European Court, the Slovak authorities amended the Code of Civil Procedure to provide individuals the possibility of applying to court to reopen proceedings based on DNA evidence or other scientific methods which had not been available in the original court proceedings. This amendment will, inter alia, provide people in the same situation as the applicant the possibility of applying to court to challenge paternity and will avoid any similar violations in the future.
Pursuant to Article 228 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as in force from 1 January 2013) a party to the proceedings can challenge final and binding judgments by, inter alia, lodging a request to reopen the proceedings
(a) If facts, decisions or evidence have come to light which she/he could not use in the original proceedings through no fault of their own and which may result in a more favourable decision for the requesting party.
(b) where evidence that could not have been brought in the original proceedings can now be presented and where that evidence may lead to a more favourable decision in the matter.
In addition, Article 230 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended and in force from 1 January 2013, includes a list of the exceptional grounds for reopening of the proceedings after the lapsing of the period of three years from the judgment becoming final.
This now includes sub-section (e) § 2 which provides that:
“e) Article 228 § 1 (a) or (b), if new evidence relates to up to date scientific methods unable to be availed in the original proceedings.”
III. Conclusions of the respondent state
The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention and that the case should be closed.
In Bratislava, 31 July 2013
Marica Pirošíková
Agent of the Slovak Republic
before the European Court of Human Rights
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy