Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 07.05.2009 "Дело "Калачева (Kalacheva) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

al history and the web of entwined rights and duties between the biological mother, biological father and the child concerned.
30. Accordingly, the Court finds that Article 8 is applicable in the present case, which concerns the applicant's right to respect for her private life. This is, in fact, not disputed between the parties.
(b) Compliance with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention
31. The Court reiterates that although the object of Article 8 is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference. In addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in an effective respect for private and family life. These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private and family life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves. The boundaries between the State's positive and negative obligations under Article 8 do not lend themselves to precise definition. The applicable principles are nonetheless similar. In particular, in both instances regard must be had to the fair balance to be struck between the competing interests (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 44362/04, § 70, ECHR 2007-...).
32. In the present case the domestic judicial authorities faced a conflict between the competing interests of the mother of a child born out of wedlock and the putative father. While it is not the Court's task to substitute itself for the competent national authorities in determining the most appropriate method for the establishment of paternity through a domestic judicial process, it should examine whether the domestic authorities, in handling the applicant's claim, complied with the requirements and spirit of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, {Mikulic}, cited above, § 59).
33. According to Russian family law, a decision establishing paternity should follow from a comprehensive and objective analysis of all evidence which may confirm or rebut a child's real origin. Furthermore, no evidence may have a predominant value for a court.
34. The Court takes note of the domestic court's finding and the Government's argument that the applicant failed to provide sufficient proof of her relationship with A. and his paternity. However, the Court observes that in the course of the domestic proceedings the Kirovskiy Court ordered a DNA test to solve this paternity dispute. The test showed a 99.99% probability that the defendant was the child's father. The Court does not lose sight of the fact that today a DNA test is the only scientific method of determining accurately the paternity of the child in question; and its probative value substantially outweighs any other evidence presented by the parties to prove or disprove the fact of an intimate relationship. Furthermore, the applicant suggested that she and the defendant had concealed their relationship; hence the genetic examination could have been the only persuasive evidence of the disputed paternity.
35. The defendant subsequently challenged the admissibility of this test, referring to its alleged shortcomings, namely inappropriate marking of the envelope with blood samples. The applicant, in her turn, contested his arguments and insisted on the accuracy of the test. The domestic courts found the test inadmissible and rejected the applicant's claim without ordering a new test.
36. The Court recalls that, according to Article 8 of the Convention, in ruling on an application to have paternity established, the courts should have special regard to the best interests of the child at issue (see {Jevremovic} v. Serbia, No. 3150/05, § 109, 17 July 2007). In the instant case the best interest of the child implicated an unambiguous answe

> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13