https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22languageisocode%22:[%22ENG%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-191717%22]}

On the 19^th March, 2019, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the applicant's appeal, whose interests were represented by attorney L. Drozdovskyy, concerning the violation of the right guaranteed by art. 8 of the Convention on Human Rights.

The Court notes that in the present case what is in issue is not an act by the State but the alleged inadequacy of the protection afforded by the domestic courts to the applicants’ private life in a dispute between private parties. In the cases of this type regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the relevant competing interests. Moreover, in all decisions concerning children their best interests should be of paramount importance. As regards the paternity disputes initiated by the putative biological fathers, the Court reiterates that despite the margin of appreciation afforded to the domestic authorities in this field, the biological father must not be completely excluded from his child’s life unless there are relevant reasons relating to the child’s best interests to do so.

The Court has found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention where the domestic authorities refused to deal with the putative biological father’s request to establish his paternity by mere reference to the recognition of paternity by another man, without, however, examining the factual background of the case.