The applicant, Mr Krušković, was found legally incapable because of personality disorders. Ms K.S. claimed that Mr Krušković is a father of her just born daughter, and Mr Krušković confirmed that to the Birth Registry. Later the child's birth certificate was amended annulling the previous note stating that Mr Krušković was the father of the child, on the ground that as a person divested of his legal capacity he did not have the right to be recognised as a father of a child.
Mr Krušković complained that he had been denied the right to be registered as the father of his biological child, and that has violated his right to private life protected under Article 8 of the Convention.
The Court reminded that persons have a vital interest in establishing the biological truth about an important aspect of their private and family life and having it recognised by law.
In order to analyze whether the fair balance was struck between the applicant’s interest in having his paternity of K. legally recognized and the public interest in protecting persons divested of their legal capacity from giving statements to the detriment of themselves or others, the Court weighted as follows:
As a person divested of his legal capacity, Mr Krušković had no possibility of giving any statement as to his paternity of the child and to institute any proceedings to have his paternity established.
In this case, both - Mr Krušković and the mother of the child - agreed that Mr Krušković is the father.
The only possibility how Mr Krušković could be recognized as the child\'s father would be that the Social Welfare Centre taking care of him would initiate civil proceedings in that regard. Consequently the paternity issue of the child was left in the discretion of the Centre which had no legal obligation to act.
Therefore the Court considered that a fair balance had not been struck, and Mr Krušković’s right to private life protected under Article 8 of the Convention had been violated.