Published on 26 September 2022

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 49326/21 Ints VEISS against Latvia lodged on 30 September 2021 communicated on 6 September 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 about the length of civil proceedings and Article 8 about the right to respect for his family life and contact with the child.

The course of the impugned domestic proceedings until 2014 has been described in the case of Veiss v. Latvia (no. 15152/12, 28 January 2014). In particular, the applicant had a relationship with A.Z. In April 2006, A.Z. gave birth to a son, A.E.Z. After the child’s birth, the applicant was not recorded as his father. Instead, in 2007 with the consent of the child’s mother, another man, A.L., was registered as the child’s father in the relevant Latvian register. The applicant then brought proceedings to strike the record of A.L.as the father of A.E.Z. and to record himself as the child’s father. In 2010 it was established that the probability of the applicant being the child’s biological father was more than 99.9 %. By a final decision of 16 May 2012, the domestic courts rejected the applicant’s claim. However, on 12 June 2013 the same domestic proceedings were reopened. In its above-mentioned judgment, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings until January 2014, when the Court adopted the judgment in that case and considered that the complaint under Article 8 was premature given that the reopened proceedings were pending.

Subsequently, on 21 November 2014 the applicant within the same domestic proceedings requested the domestic courts to establish his contact rights with A.E.Z. On 6 June 2016 that request was granted, but it appears that such meetings did not take place. In 2017 A.Z. with A.E.Z. moved to Estonia. In 2018 A.E.Z. was adopted in Estonia by H.V. with the consent of the child’s mother, A.Z., and A.L. By a decision of 5 December 2019, the appellate court dismissed the applicant’s claim to strike the record of A.L. as the father of A.E.Z. and to record himself as the child’s father. On 14 July 2020 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the case. By a decision of 4 February 2021, the Supreme Court struck the record of A.L. as the father of child and registered the applicant as the child’s father with effect as from his birth in 2006 until 26 April 2018, when he had been adopted by H.V.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention with respect to the conduct of the proceedings?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, with respect to his right to have contact with the child?

3. Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case after the Court’s judgment in Veiss v. Latvia (no. 15152/12, 28 January 2014) in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

4. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of his complaint under Article 6 § 1 ? In particular, can the mechanism recognised by the Court in the case of Guravska v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 41553/18, 7 July 2020) be considered an effective domestic remedy in the circumstances of the present case?