Mensenrechtenhof veroordeelt Rusland voor afhandeling scheidings- en vaderschapszaak geëmigreerde Rus (en)
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment in the case of Shofman v. Russia (application no. 74826/01).
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.
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 6,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,299 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)
-
1.Principal facts
The applicant, Leonid Mikhaylovich Shofman, is a Russian and German national who was born in 1957 and lives in Gross-Rohrheim (Germany).
On 12 May 1995, his wife gave birth to a son. The applicant was registered as the child's father.
In March 1996 the applicant moved to Germany. His wife informed him in September of the following year that the marriage was over and that she would be applying for maintenance for the child. At about that time the applicant's relatives advised him that he was not the boy's father. The applicant petitioned for divorce and brought an action contesting paternity on 16 December 1997.
Relying on the results of DNA tests, Zheleznodorozhniy District Court found it established that the applicant could not be the boy's father but ruled that the case was governed by the Marriage and Family Code of 30 July 1969. That Code set a one-year limitation period for a paternity action and since the applicant only applied to the courts in December 1997, his action was held to be time-barred.
The judgment was upheld on appeal and in September 2002 his wife's claim for maintenance was granted.
-
2.Procedure and composition of the Court
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 September 2001 and declared partly admissible on 25 March 2004.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Christos Rozakis (Greek), President,
Françoise Tulkens (Belgian),
Peer Lorenzen (Danish),
Nina Vajić (Croatian),
Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian),
Anatoli Kovler (Russian),
Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges,
and also Soren Nielsen, Section Registrar.
3. Summary of the judgment1
Complaint
The applicant alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, in that proceedings to disclaim his presumed paternity were held to be time-barred under the law in force at the material time.
Decision of the Court
The Court reiterated that the introduction of a time-limit for the institution of paternity proceedings could be justified by the desire to ensure legal certainty in family relations and to protect the interests of the child. However, so far it had only been confronted with cases where the applicant had known with certainty, or had had grounds for assuming, that he was not the father from the first day of the child's life but - for reasons unconnected with the law - had taken no steps to contest paternity within the statutory time-limit.
The situation in the present case was different because the applicant had not suspected that the child was not his and reared him as his own for some two years after birth.
The Court noted that the applicant would have had a right under domestic law to contest paternity had he lodged the action within one year after the birth. Whereas in other member States in certain exceptional cases a court or a public prosecutor may grant leave to institute proceedings after the expiry of the time-limit, the Russian Marriage and Family Code made no allowance for husbands who did not become aware that they were not the father of the child until more than a year after the birth. The Government did not give any reasons why it should have been "necessary in a democratic society" to establish an inflexible time-limit.
The Court considered that the fact that the applicant was prevented from disclaiming paternity because he did not discover that he might not be the father until more than a year after he learnt of the birth was not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.
The Court concluded that Russia had failed to secure to the applicant the respect for his private life, to which he was entitled under the Convention. There had therefore been a violation of Article 8.
Judge Lorenzen expressed a concurring opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.
The Court's judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).
Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Press contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)
Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91
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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court's judgments.