issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 279 (2023)
12.10.2023
Judgments and decisions of 12 October 2023
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 12 judgments1 and 25 decisions 2:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below;
a separate press release has been issued for one other Chamber judgment in the case of Total S.A.
v. France and Vitol S.A. v. France (application nos. 34634/18 et 43546/18);
nine Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and
the 25 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).
C.P. and M.N. v. France (nos. 56513/17 and 56515/17)*
The applicants, C.P. and M.N., are French nationals who were born in 1965 and 1967 respectively
and live in Paris.
The applicant M.N. and her former partner lived together from 15 July 2005 until the beginning of
March 2012. Two children were born in the course of their cohabitation. The second child, N., was
legally recognised by M.N.’s former partner before his birth. At the beginning of March 2012 M.N.
left her former partner and on 14 March 2012 she entered into a civil partnership with the applicant
C.P.
On 14 November 2012 C.P. brought proceedings against N.’s legal father to have the latter’s
recognition of paternity declared null and void and his own paternity in respect of N. legally
recognised.
In parallel, on 12 December 2012, M.N. applied to the family-affairs judge, requesting that certain
measures be imposed concerning the two children and that alternating residence arrangements be
introduced. In the course of those proceedings, she referred to the action contesting paternity
brought in parallel by C.P.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of
Human Rights, the applicants complain about the domestic courts’ refusal to examine C.P.’s action
contesting the legal father’s paternity, for the purpose of having C.P.’s paternity established. They
submit that by declaring that action inadmissible, the domestic courts applied the grounds for
refusal provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 333 of the Civil Code too rigidly, in that they gave
precedence to a purely procedural requirement in an excessively formalistic manner. They allege
that those same courts thus failed to strike a fair balance between the competing rights and
interests at stake.
No violation of Article 8
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s
delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five
judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
