PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE WOJTYCZEK

1. I respectfully disagree with the majority view that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the present case.

2 . In my view, the Finnish Government have convincingly established that the applicant had doubts since she was a teenager about the identity of her biological father. She was 22 years old when the Paternity Act entered into force on 1 October 1976. At that time the church register contained the correct information about the paternity of the applicant. In such a situation, she could have easily checked the information in the church register and initiated the appropriate proceedings to establish paternity within the time-limit defined by Finnish law.

3 . In my opinion, the Finnish courts have examined the applicant ’ s case with due diligence. The judgment of the District Court of 18 June 2003 confirms that the applicant, since her teenage years, had doubts about the identity of her biological father. In such a context, according to the District Court, the applicant could have initiated the proceedings within the statutory time-limit. I note further that the Court of Appeal upheld, on the same grounds, the decision of the District Court.

4 . Taking into account all relevant facts, I give credence to the statement of the Finnish Government that “the applicant ’ s allegation that she did not know that her stepfather was not her father thus cannot be accepted” (observations of the Government of Finland, dated 17 September 2008, par. 38). Therefore, in the specific circumstances of the present case, the interference with the applicant ’ s rights protected by Article 8 of the Convention does not reach the threshold of a violation.