KŇÁKAL - Czech Republic (N^o 39277/06)

   Decision 8.1.2007 [Section V]

   

   In 2001 the applicant met his future partner, who was already pregnant. Shortly afterwards she
   gave birth to a daughter in respect of whom he acknowledged paternity, and he was entered as
   the father in the birth register. His partner then discontinued the paternity suit she had
   brought against the child’s putative biological father. In 2004 the applicant and his partner
   ended their relationship. The applicant, claiming that he had lost all ties with the child,
   requested the attorney-general’s office to initiate an action to disclaim paternity on his
   behalf. The attorney-general dismissed his request on the ground that the applicant himself
   had failed to bring an action to disclaim paternity within the statutory time-limit of six
   months, and that the possibility of disclaiming paternity would neither result in a positive
   change in the child’s life nor lead to the restoration of ties between the child and her
   biological father. A constitutional appeal by the applicant was also dismissed.

   

   Article 6(1) – In view of the decision of the Constitutional Court, which had considered that
   the applicant’s right to disclaim paternity had lapsed, as he had failed to exercise that
   right within the statutory time-limit of six months, the Court found that he had asserted a
   right which could not arguably be said to have been recognised under domestic law:
   incompatible ratione materiae.

   

   Article 8, whether or not in conjunction with Article 13 – There was nothing to substantiate
   the applicant’s argument that it was in the child’s interest that the right to disclaim
   paternity should be unrestricted. In the Court’s opinion a fair balance had been struck
   between the various interests involved. In particular, it could not be regarded as unjustified
   that, once the limitation period for the applicant’s own action to disclaim paternity had
   expired, greater weight had been given by the authorities to the interests of the child than
   to those of the applicant. Unlike the situation in the case of Paulík v. Slovakia
   (no. 10699/05, 10 October 2006 – see Case-Law Report / Information Note no. 90), the applicant
   in this case had known even before the child’s birth that he was not her biological father but
   had nevertheless acknowledged paternity in full awareness of the consequences. Moreover, the
   child in question was an infant who was partly dependent on the applicant’s maintenance
   payments: manifestly ill-founded.

   ^