Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=18.02.2014&Aktenzeichen=28609/08
Timestamp: 2020-01-17 17:17:23
Document Index: 67165904

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 59', '§ 72', '§ 66', '§ 102', '§ 72', '§ 68', '§ 66', '§ 32', '§ 66', '§ 43', '§ 43']

EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2014,1976
EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08 (https://dejure.org/2014,1976)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.02.2014 - 28609/08 (https://dejure.org/2014,1976)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Februar 2014 - 28609/08 (https://dejure.org/2014,1976)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,1976) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
The Court agrees and observes that it has on many occasions found that an attempt by a putative father to officially disavow his paternity concerned his private life under the said provision (see, among others, A. L. v. Poland, no. 28609/08, § 59, 18 February 2014).
This does not mean that "when domestic authorities carefully assess the best interests of the child, the Court should not, in principle, contradict their findings, in particular if they are made by an independent court in judicial proceedings" (see paragraph 47 of the judgment, referring to A.L. v. Poland, no. 28609/08, § 72, 18 February 2014).
Pour ce faire, la Cour doit examiner, à la lumière de l'ensemble de l'affaire, si les motifs invoqués pour la justifier étaient pertinents et suffisants aux fins du paragraphe 2 de l'article 8. Elle n'a pas pour tâche de se substituer aux autorités internes, qui bénéficient de rapports directs avec tous les intéressés, mais d'apprécier sous l'angle de la Convention les décisions qu'elles ont rendues dans l'exercice de leur pouvoir d'appréciation (voir, parmi d'autres, A.L. c. Pologne, no 28609/08, § 66, 18 février 2014).
In addition, in the context of complaints examined under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has held that it must be satisfied that the decision-making process leading to the adoption of the impugned measures by the domestic courts was fair and allowed those concerned to present their case fully, and that the best interests of the child were defended (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 102, ECHR 2013; A.L. v. Poland, no. 28609/08, § 72, 18 February 2014).
Pour ce faire, la Cour doit examiner, à la lumière de l'ensemble de l'affaire, si les motifs invoqués pour la justifier étaient pertinents et suffisants aux fins du paragraphe 2 de l'article 8 ; elle n'a pas pour tâche de se substituer aux autorités internes, mais d'apprécier sous l'angle de la Convention les décisions qu'elles ont rendues dans l'exercice de leur pouvoir d'appréciation (même arrêt, § 68 ; voir aussi, parmi d'autres, A.L. c. Pologne, no 28609/08, § 66, 18 février 2014).
The Court observes in that connection that its task is not to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities in regulating paternity disputes at the national level, but rather to review under the Convention the decisions that those authorities have taken in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see Krisztián Barnabás Tóth, cited above, § 32, and A.L. v. Poland, no. 28609/08, § 66, 18 February 2014).
The Court firstly considers that the applicant's complaint about the alleged breach of his rights guaranteed by Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention is based on the same fact, namely the prosecutor's refusal to institute proceedings for the disavowal of his paternity of O. It finds that the application should be examined under Article 8 of the Convention alone (see A.L. v. Poland, no. 28609/08, § 43, 18 February 2014).
It finds that the complaint should be examined under Article 8 of the Convention alone (see A.L. v. Poland, no. 28609/08, § 43, 18 February 2014).