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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles
Authors

PATERNITY: Tavli v Turkey (Application No 11449/02)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:38 PM
Slug : tavland-305-v-turkey-application-no-11449-02
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 21, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88947

(European Court of Human Rights; 9 November 2006)

The mother's husband disputed his paternity of the child immediately after the birth of the child. The results of the blood test suggested that the husband could possibly have been the father, and on that basis the court refused to overturn the presumption of paternity. After DNA testing became available, the husband was able to establish conclusively that he was not the father of the child, but he was unable to have the previous decision rectified, because the domestic court held that scientific progress could not be used as a ground to reopen the proceedings.

The State had not struck a fair balance between the protection of legal certainty of family relationships and the husband's right to have the legal presumption of paternity reviewed in the light of conclusive biological evidence. The domestic courts should interpret existing legislation in the light of scientific progress and its social repercussions. There had been a breach of Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.

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