The struggle for truth against time and limitation period in the light of two paternity court cases

By George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Two recent cases, one by the European Court of Human Rights and the other by the Athens Court of First Instance with similar facts, show once again that justice can dispel the darkness caused by human deceit having as a result the distortion of real facts.

Against time and limitation

Time, was essentially the reason why the courts in Serbia denied the 50-year-old Peda Boljevic the right to know the truth about who his biological father was. Until 2011 he believed that A was his real father but when he died, Boljevic discovered in old court rulings around 1970 that A could not be his biological father. So, at the beginning of 2012, he filed a lawsuit with his mother, invoking the old decisions by also adding the argument that back then there was no DNA test, but today this could be done based on a court decree.

The courts in Serbia, both the court of first instance and the court of appeals, rejected his application as lapsed, after so many years. In particular, such requests for reconsideration of a case based on new evidence or facts may be submitted within 5 years after the final decision under national law, which meant that Boljevic should have submitted the request in 1977. The Court of Appeal stated that the fact that he had recently become aware of the old decisions of 1970’s was irrelevant, his rights had been secured in the initial court proceedings by his legal guardian. The rejection judgment of the two courts was confirmed by the Constitutional Court in 2014. Three times, with an equal number of court decisions, the judicial system blocked Boljevic the way to the search for the truth. He thus appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.

Τhe transcendence of the ECtHR

The European Court of Human Rights has dealt with the matter differently. It initially acknowledged the legal correctness of the Serbian courts' rejection decisions to reopen the paternity case on the grounds of legal certainty and protection of the rights of third parties (ie a short deadline for infringing paternity in order to protect the recognized father and possible injustice by overturning things from very old events).

However, the Court, going beyond legal formalism, found that legal certainty was not in itself a sufficient reason to prevent the applicant from exercising his right to discover the truth of his origin, given the circumstances of his case and the issue at stake for one who was about to learn such an important element of his personal identity. The Court also acknowledged that there was no legal way to extend the time limit for requesting a paternity review, and that the personal life of the deceased, officially recognized, father, would not be affected by a DNA test nor it could be shown what the family's reaction would be in such a case. On this ground, the Court ruled that the Serbian judicial system did not guarantee Boljevic the right to privacy as guaranteed by the European Convention, and that Article 8 ECHR had therefore been violated.

The decision of the ECtHR is very important because it disputes (if it does not overturn) the invocation of the statute of limitation of the claim as a reason for rejecting the application for retrial of the paternity case. Even in a case like this one, where the claim was extinguished in 1977, that is, more than 40 years ago, allowing legal certainty to recede in the face of a person's right to discover his real father, as an element of his personal identity.

Lawsuit against parents

A similar story was examined in Greece, by Athens Court of First Instance. This time the plaintiff, about 40 years old, filed a lawsuit against her father and mother. The defendants' marriage was at some point dissolved and while the father was generally careless to his daughter, a third man "showed inexplicable feelings of love towards both the plaintiff since her childhood and her mother", as the decision states. In fact, when this man died, he left in his will the plaintiff as his only heir, without naming her as his daughter, while evidence of money transfer to her was found. According to the decision, the plaintiff asked her mother about her real relationship with this third man and if this was her biological father, but her mother categorically denied that she had an affair with him and that the plaintiff was his own child. The explanation she gave for the expressions of love for the plaintiff was sympathy, since he had not had a family of his own.

The applicant, however, underwent DNA testing, which resulted in the third man having a 99.99% chance of being his biological father. Subsequently, she brought an action, in which she claimed to be the real child of this man from the relationship that her mother maintained with that person before her marriage to her first defendant, presumed father. The mother denied these allegations.

The deadline for filing a paternity lawsuit

The prescription  period in Greece for filing a lawsuit against paternity is one (1) year from the child coming of age, therefore the plaintiff would have lost the right to a lawsuit since 1999. However, due to the combination of articles 255, 257, and 279 of the Greek Civil Code, the prescription period, as well as the limitation period of the claims due to the proportion of law, were suspended, inter alia, for as long as the beneficiary was prevented by the deceit of the obligor from exercising the right, and the deceit of the obligor must coincide with the last six months of the limitation period or the prescription period.

According to the decision, ‘deceit’ means any action of the obligor aimed at the inaction of the right and the completion of the limitation period to file the claim, carried out, in particular, with misleading demonstrations tending to create in the beneficiary impressions about the satisfaction of his claim and inaction during the last semester of the limitation period. Such fraudulent behavior of the obligor, therefore, exists when the latter provokes the commencement of negotiations to find a compromise solution, which seem to be done for this purpose, but which are in fact directed at continuing the inaction of the beneficiaries or when dilatory discussions are held with the beneficiary in order the latter no to exercise his claim in a timely manner. This behavior was attributed by the plaintiff to her mother.

In this case, the Court of First Instance ruled that the conditions of the legal provision on the suspension of the limitation period and therefore the one-year mandatory time-limit for the infringement of paternity by the plaintiff was suspended until 02/05/2018, to be completed after the lapse of six months (Article 257 § 2 of the Civil Code). As a result her lawsuit, which was filed about a month later, is timely. The court finally ordered a retrial in order to carry out a medical examination, ie a DNA test.

This is a fair confrontation of this judicial issue, which is crucial for the applicant's personality. Otherwise, the end of the short prescription period of one year from adulthood would lead to unfair results as it would deprive the child of the right to challenge paternity. Here again legal certainty falls short of the child's right to know the truth and its real father. In a short time the plaintiff will probably be able to confirm in court what in real life she had suspected. That someone else was her real father.

Epilogue

The above two decisions are an expression of the adaptability of the law and of the legal system to social needs and current circumstances while in parallel putting aside the formal application of the statute of limitations, which despite of the fact that it is an institution of substantive law, often "loses" its substance.

Behind the files of the cases, the condensed legal documents, the labyrinthine legal provisions and the reasoning of the court decisions, are the people and their lives, their mistakes and weaknesses, but also their right to know the truth, which, as by its nature, survives and can be disclosed beyond time limits.

More Articles by George Kazoleas are available here

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Daily Mail publisher wins case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers (ECtHR)

Image
Obligation on publisher of the Daily Mail to pay substantial “success fees" in defamation and breach of privacy cases was excessive. The case Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom (application no. 37398/21) concerned the fact that Associated Newspapers Limited the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday had been obliged to pay extensive costs incurred by claimants who had successfully sued it in privacy and/or defamation proceedings following articles it had published in print or online in 2017 and 2019.  Since one of the claimants had entered into a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with his legal representative, and both had taken out “after-the-event” (ATE) insurance, Associated Newspapers Limited had been liable not only for their base costs, but also for fee uplifts including the “success fee” in the CFA and for their ATE insurance premiums.  In Chamber judgment (12.11.2024) in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that t...
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

Intellectual property: the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
In its Judgment in Case T-82/24 (Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO) (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF) the General Court ruled that the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark. That phrase, which has become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, is not perceived as an indication of a commercial origin.  The Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) requests the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 st December 2023, which refused registration of the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark: ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ That mark is a war cry uttered by the Ukrainian border guard on Snake Island on 24th February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Registration was sou...
Read more

The banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Cases T-386/21 (Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission) and T-406/21 (UBS Group and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) v Commission), the banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars (‘SSA Bonds’).  The General Court of the European Union confirms the Commission’s finding of an infringement and maintains the amount of the fines imposed in 2021. In 2018, the European Commission initiated proceedings for infringement of the competition rules involving Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse (now UBS Group [1] ).  In 2021, the Commission found that those banks had entered into an agreement on the secondary market for suprasovereign, sovereign and agency bonds denominated in dollars (SSA bonds). According to the Commission, traders employed by ...
Read more

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Image
The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to th...
Read more

A national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law (ECJ)

Image
In its Judgment of 26.9.2024 in Case C-792/22 (Energotehnica) the Court of Justice ruled as regards the right to an effective remedy that a national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law. In such a case, the national court may not be penalised.  Following the death of an electrician by electrocution during a maintenance operation, an administrative procedure was initiated against his employer. At the same time, criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were initiated against the supervisor. The victim’s next of kin also became civil parties to the criminal proceedings.  The administrative court hearing the dispute concluded that the present case did not involve an ‘accident at work’. It annulled the administrative penalties imposed on the employer. According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, that administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whe...
Read more