FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 43111/10 Patman MODEBADZE against Georgia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 8 April 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Paul Mahoney , President, Nona Tsotsoria , Krzysztof Wojtyczek , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 July 2010 ,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant , Ms Patman Modebadze, who was born in 1983, is a Georgian national and lives in the village of Khreiti, Tchiatura Region, Georgia. She is represented before the Court by Mr Anton Robakidze, a lawyer practicing in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze , of the Ministry of Justice .

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties , concern the applicant ’ s unsuccessful attempt to have civil paternity established for her minor child, who w as born out of wedlock on 3 May 2007 , on the basis of DNA blood tests.

3. Notably, on 6 November 2009 the Kutaisi Court of Appeals, after a series of remittals of the case between various levels of jurisdiction, refused to accept the results of a DNA test which confirmed the biological bloodline between the applicant ’ s child and the respondent putative father for a procedural reason. The final decision in those proceedings, which resulted in the rejection of the applicant ’ s claim, was delivered by the Supreme Court of Georgia on 22 March 2010.

B. Relevant domestic law

4. Prior to 20 December 2011, Article 1190 § 3 of the Civil Code read as follows:

Article 1190 § 3

“When establishing paternity, the court shall have regard to whether the mother and the respondent [putative father] have cohabitated and jointly kept a household prior to the birth of the child or have contributed together to the upbringing and nurture of the child or to a document which proves with sufficient certainty that the fact of paternity has been conceded to by the respondent.”

5 . On 20 December 2011 Article 1190 of the Civil Code, notably its paragraphs 3 and 4, were amended in order for the results of a DNA test to become the foremost ground for the establishment of civil paternity, followed by such other factors as those which had been mentioned in the previous version of Article 1190 § 3 of the Civil Code :

Article 1190 §§ 3 and 4

“The court shall establish paternity on the basis of the results (evidence) of a biological (genetic) or anthropological examination.

If it is not possible to establish paternity on the basis of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 3, the court shall have regard to whether the mother and the respondent [putative father] have cohabitated and jointly kept a household prior to the birth of the child or have contributed together to the upbringing and nurture of the child or to a document or factual circumstances which prove with sufficient certainty that the fact of paternity has been conceded to by the respondent.”

COMPLAINT

6. Citing in substance Article 8 of the Convention , the applicant complain ed about the domestic courts ’ refusal to accept the DNA test results as the basis for the establish ment of legal paternity for her minor child.

THE LAW

7. On 24 February 2014 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“ I, Levan Meskhoradze, the Government Agent, declare that the Government of Georgia, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, duly acknowledge that the applicant, Mrs Patman Modebadze , is entitled, under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, to apply for the reopening of the initial civil proceedings in order to have her claim for establishment of paternity examined under the current wording of Article 1190 of the Civil Code, as amended on 20 December 2011.

In addition, the Government of Georgia are ready to pay the applicant 3,000 (three thousand) euros to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. This sum will be converted into national currency of Georgia at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The reopening of the civil proceedings at the domestic level and payment of the above sum will constitute the final resolution of the case. ”

8. On 11 March 2014 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ I, Anton Robakidze, note that the Government of Georgia, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, acknowledge that the applicant, Mrs Patman Modebadze, is entitled, under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, to apply for the reopening of the initial civil proceedings in order to have her claim for establishment of paternity examined under the current wording of Article 1190 of the Civil Code, as amended on 20 December 2011.

I also note that the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant 3,000 (three thousand) euros to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. This sum will be converted into national currency of Georgia at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Having consulted my client, I would inform you that she accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Georgia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. She declares that this constitutes a final resolution of the case. ”

9. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court , unanimously ,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.

FatoÅŸ Aracı Paul Mahoney              Deputy Registrar President