CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE LORENZEN

I have agreed with the majority that there has been a violation of Article 8 but only with some hesitation for the following reasons:

The assessment of to what extent and under what conditions a registered paternity may be contested is very difficult involving a number of conflicting interests. Thus the “biological reality” is only one of them, and it may in the circumstances of a given case be outweighed by for instance the interests of the child, the child ’ s mother or the society in preserving the stability of the legal status of persons. An example of that is the Court ’ s decision of 19 October 1999 in Yildirim v. Austria . It is therefore not astonishing that a survey of the legislations in the Contracting States on the institution of paternity actions reveals that there is no universally adopted standard, but on the contrary the various legal systems differ considerably according to the political, social and cultural traditions. In my opinion the Court should be careful not to impose a general opinion on how such conflicting interests should be assessed but leave a wide margin of appreciation to national legislators.

The former Russian legislation only made a contestation possible until one year after the birth of the child irrespective of the circumstances of the case. Even if such a limited access to contest a paternity is not unique in the legislations of the Contracting States, it must nevertheless be justified. However, the respondent Government have n ot advanced any arguments in th at respect, and for that reason I can agree to the finding of a violation in the present case.

[1] . RSFSR – Russian Soviet Federalist Socialist Republic .