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
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
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