Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

HUMAN RIGHTS/PATERNITY: Rozanski v Poland (Application no 55339/00)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:26 PM
Slug : rozanski-v-poland-application-no-55339-00
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 18, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86361

(European Court of Human Rights; 18 May 2006)

The child was born while the mother was cohabiting with the applicant. For a period the child was left in the sole care of the applicant, but after the child became ill and was taken into hospital the mother removed the child and went into hiding. The applicant had had no further contact with the child. The mother's new partner recognised paternity of the child and was acknowledged by the authorities as the legal father. The applicant could not assert paternity without the co-operation of the authorities in instituting paternity proceedings and this had been refused him.

There had been a violation of Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. There were no directly accessible procedures by which the applicant could attempt to establish his legal paternity, as the launching of paternity procedures was completely at the discretion of authorities. The absence of any guidance as to the authorities' exercise of their discretionary powers concerning paternity was also a concern. No steps had been taken by the authorities to investigate the facts of case and the mere fact that the child had been legally recognised by another man had been sufficient to justify refusing the applicant's requests to have his biological paternity recognised.

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