Violation of the rights of a biological father regarding his son’s adoption by another man. Conviction for violation of Article 8 of the ECHR
JUDGMENT
I.V. v. Estonia 10.10.2023 (app. no. 37031/21)
SUMMARY
The case concerned a father’s attempt to contest the adoption of his biological son by another man
in Estonia, against the background of paternity proceedings in Latvia.
The Court stressed that although this was a cross-border case, the Court was examining only
Estonia’s responsibility. The Court found that the Estonian authorities had overall failed to strike a fair balance between the
interests of the applicant and those of his son in either the proceedings allowing the adoption or the
subsequent proceedings brought by the father requesting to annul the adoption. In particular, in the proceedings allowing the adoption the Estonian courts had paid no attention to the fact that there were, in parallel, ongoing paternity proceedings in Latvia, and they subsequently
simply rejected the father’s request to annul the adoption solely on formal grounds, because he did
not have standing as the legal father.
PROVISION
Article 8
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Mr I.V., is a Latvian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Riga (Latvia).
In spring 2006 Mr I.V. had a son, born in Latvia, from a relationship. The mother no longer permitted
contact between Mr I.V. and his son from January 2007 onwards. Shortly afterwards Mr I.V. found
out that another man had acknowledged paternity and been registered as the boy’s father. Mr I.V.
challenged paternity in the Latvian courts.
While those proceedings in the Latvian courts were ongoing, the mother and child moved to Estonia
and the child was adopted in April 2018 by the mother’s new husband. Mr I.V. only learnt of the
adoption afterwards and lodged an application in the Estonian courts to have the decision annulled.
The Estonian Supreme Court concluded in 2021 that Mr I.V. did not have standing as the (legally
recognised) “father” under Estonian law since his paternity had not yet been confirmed in Latvia. It
also explained that, even if Mr I.V.’s paternity were later recognised, that would not retroactively
invalidate the consent to adoption of the legal father – that is to say the person registered as the
child’s father at the time of the adoption.
Ultimately the Latvian courts recognised Mr I.V.’s paternity and registered him as the father, from
the boy’s date of birth to the date of his adoption.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court stressed that what was at stake in the present case was not the responsibility of the
Latvian authorities, even though the paternity proceedings had lasted for an exceptionally long time
in that country, but that of the Estonian State.
It pointed out that the case at hand had to be assessed as a whole, and that its task was to assess
whether the Estonian authorities had struck a fair balance between the competing interests at stake,
including both the interests of the applicant as well as those of his son.
However, the Court found that the Estonian authorities had shown a significant lack of diligence in
relation to the proceedings concerning the adoption, even though they had to or ought to have been
aware of the ongoing paternity proceedings in Latvia, given the Latvian authorities’ request, in
January 2018, for judicial cooperation.
Subsequently, the Estonian Supreme Court had rejected the application to annul the adoption solely
on formal grounds, without taking into account the particular circumstances of the case. The
Supreme Court had found that the applicant did not have standing since his legal paternity had not
yet been recognised by a final court judgment in Latvia.
The outcome of the proceedings in Estonia had actually led to the applicant’s legal paternity being
recognised by the Latvian courts for a limited period only, that is to say until the date that the child
had been adopted in Estonia.
The Court concluded overall that the Estonian authorities had failed to identify and examine the
particular circumstances of the case and to assess the various rights and interests of the individuals
involved, including those of the applicant, in either set of proceedings (allowing the adoption or
concerning the request to annul the adoption). There had therefore been a violation of Article 8.
Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The Court held that Estonia was to pay the applicant 12,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 6,844 in respect of costs and expenses.
