Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

HUMAN RIGHTS: Paulik v Slovakia (Application No 10699/05)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Slug : paulik-v-slovakia-application-no-10699-05
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 23, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 87891

(European Court of Human Rights; 10 October 2006)

Many years after the Slovakian court had ruled that the applicant was the father of the child, the applicant obtained DNA evidence which showed that he was not. It proved impossible under domestic legislation for the applicant to challenge the original court ruling, even though the child in question was now an adult, with children of her own, had provided the applicant with the DNA and supported the applicant's attempt to overturn the paternity ruling. The applicant argued that the Slovakian authorities had breached his Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 rights, and had discriminated against him.

The Slovakian legal system had failed to secure respect for the applicant's private life. In cases in which paternity had been presumed, rather than tested, parents were able to take legal steps to contest the paternity ruling subsequently, but the domestic law made no allowance for the specific circumstances of the applicant's case. There was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the aim sought by the legislation and the absolute means employed.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from