EIT: Suomessa voimassa oleva viiden vuoden määräaika liian jäykkä isyysasioissa

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin (EIT) on tänään antanut kaksi vaikutuksiltaan kenties huomattavankin merkittävää tuomiota isyyslain voimaanpanosta annetussa laissa olevasta viiden vuoden kanneajasta isyysasioissa niitä henkilöitä koskien, jotka ovat syntyneet ennen 1.10.1976.

EIT totesi tuomioissaan, että valittajien oikeutta perhe-elämän ja yksityisyyden suojaan oli loukattu joustamattomalla kanneajalla.

Mielenkiintoista tuomioissa oli se, että valittajien vaatiman aineellisen vahingon osalta - perintöosuuksien menetys, joka toisella valittajalla oli yli 140.000 euroa -  asia ei ollut vielä kypsä ratkaistavaksi. Valtiolla on nyt kuusi kuukautta aikaa löytää sovinnollinen ratkaisu valittajien kanssa.

The Court first recalled that it had accepted in other cases that the introduction of a time-limit for the institution of paternity proceedings was justified, in that it ensured legal certainty and finality in family relations. It further observed that there was no uniform approach to judicial recognition of paternity in European States, but there was a tendency towards a greater protection of the right of the child to have her or his paternal affiliation established.

While the Finnish Paternity Act adequately secured the interests of people born out of wedlock who had been acknowledged by their fathers, as well as those born after the Act’s entry into force, and those born before who had been able to initiate paternity proceedings within the time-limit, it did not make any allowance for people in the applicants’ situation.

Once Ms Grönmark had become an adult, the limitation period for bringing paternity proceedings had already elapsed. She was thus unable to have the legal status of her biological father established, even though she had not had any realistic opportunity to go to court during the relevant period. The Court could accept that Mr Backlund, as an adult, should have brought those proceedings during the limitation period. However, the Court had difficulties in accepting the inflexible limitation period with time running irrespective of a child’s ability to provide reliable evidence.

Moreover, the Court found it difficult to accept that the national authorities had allowed the legal constraints to override biological facts by relying on the absolute nature of the time-limit even though the applicants had put forward conclusive evidence through DNA tests. In addition, national legislation did not provide any alternative means of redress, as the time-limit could not be restored by seeking extraordinary remedies. Nor had the domestic courts agreed to any exceptions to the application of the time-limit in question except in one exceptional case.

It was clear from the Finnish Supreme Court’s judgment in Ms Grönmark’s case that the general interest and the interests both of R.J. and his family were accorded greater weight than the applicant’s right to have her origins legally confirmed. In Mr Backlund’s case, the domestic courts had not made any attempt to balance the competing interests. The Court considered that such a radical restriction of the right to institute proceedings for the judicial determination of paternity was not proportionate to the aim of ensuring legal certainty. Applying a rigid time-limit for the exercise of paternity proceedings, regardless of the circumstances of an individual case impaired the very essence of the right to respect for one’s private life The Court therefore unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 8.

Tuomiot kokonaisuudessaan: Grönmark v. Finland ja Backlund v. Finland

Finlex-lyhennelmät tuomioista: Grönmark: 06.07.2010, Backlund: 06.07.2010

Palaa otsikoihin