Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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