Information Note on the Court’s case-law 90
October 2006
Paulík v. Slovakia - 10699/05
Judgment 10.10.2006 [Section IV]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Impossibility to challenge in court a judicial declaration of paternity: violation
Article 14
Discrimination
Impossibility to disclaim paternity established by final judicial decision, in contrast with presumed paternity: violation
Facts: In 2004 the applicant sought to bring proceedings to challenge a declaration of paternity made in 1970. He was in possession of new evidence, in the form of a DNA report, which proved that he was not the father. The Prosecutor General informed the applicant that since his paternity had already been decided on by a court with final effect, the prosecutors had no power to have the matter reviewed in court again. The applicant then lodged an unsuccessful complaint with the Constitutional Court.
Law: Article 8 – The Court noted that the law did not provide the applicant with any possibility of challenging the judicial declaration of his paternity. Although the Court accepted that the law needed to ensure legal certainty and security of family relationships and protect the interests of children, his daughter was now almost 40 years old, had her own family and was not dependent on the applicant. The general interest in protecting her rights at that stage, therefore, had lost much of its importance. Furthermore, she had initiated the DNA test herself and had had no objection to the applicant’s disclaiming paternity. It therefore appeared that the lack of a procedure for bringing the legal position into line with the biological reality flew in the face of the wishes of those concerned and did not in fact benefit anyone. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a failure in the domestic legal system to secure to the applicant respect for his private life.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 – The Court noted that parents in cases where paternity was presumed, rather than determined in a final judicial decision, were able to take legal steps to contest the paternity but that the law made no allowance for the specific circumstances of the applicant’s case, such as the age, personal situation and attitude of his daughter. Therefore, there was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the aim sought by the legislation and the absolute means employed.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
For further details, see Press Release no. 574.
© 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