JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS V. THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA ON THE APPLICATION OF GENETIC TESTING IN PATERNITY LITIGATION
Main Article Content
Abstract
The case law of the European Court of Human Rights is of great importance for the formulation of human rights standards as it applies the European Convention on Human Rights by interpreting the prescribed rights and freedoms taking into account social reality and legal regulation in Council of Europe member states. When joining this political organization the Republic of Serbia carried out the procedures of adjusting the legislation to the convention requirements, so that, in normative sense, Serbian family law systematically follows modern standards of human rights protection. The decisions of the Court in cases in which the issues of establishing paternity was applied by DNA analysis are conditioned by the circumstances of each individual case. In this paper reasearch is devoted to the two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights versus Republic of Serbia on determining the origin of the child from the father judgements that have a family law in the narrow sense in which Court took the position that domestic legislation did not take into account the relevant elements of the case, the possibility to establish a balance of relevant interests when determing the identity of the biological father regarding DNA analysis. By definition genetic testing implies the analysis of one genome and its products, its function or DNA or chromosomal analysis aimed at identifying or contradicting certain facts. This method involves comparing the DNA profile of a child with DNA profile of the potential father by comparing locus – specific gene location or DNA region on chromosome – which differ in their structure and length, so that non-blood person have different structure of the molecule in each analyzed locus, while biological relatives have the same structure. This means that their DNA profiles have visible traces of genetic heritage. Although every person has a vital interest in finding out information that complete his/her own knowledge of his/her background it is important to know that third party protection can prevent him/herfrom being forced into medical testing of any kind, including DNA analysis. Member States have different solutions to deal with in cases where a potential father refuses to undergo tests necessary to establish facts of a biological origin. In some jurisdictions non-compliance with medical testing is sanctioned by monetary or imprisonment penalty, while in others it is for the failure to act on a warrant the court activates the presumption of paternity. When paternity cannot be determined by DNA analysis, Member States must provide the determination of paternity by alternative means of evidence taking into account the existence of a fair balance between the right to know the origin and the right of potential father not to undergo this type of medical expertise.
Downloads
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Bukvić, N. 2005. Genetski testovi. Medicus, 6(1), pp. 38-40.
Canki-Klain, N. 2011. Genetsko savjetovanje, genetsko testiranje i prenatalna dijagnostika FSHD. Poslijediplomski tečaj Novosti u kliničkoj genetici: molekularna dijagnostika, terapija i prevencija facioskapulohumeralne mišićne distrofije (FSHD). Zagreb: Medicinski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, pp. 121-127.
Cvejić-Jančić, O. 2009. Porodično pravo. Novi Sad: Pravni fakultet.
Čizmić, J. 2011. O vještačenju u parničnom postupku s posebnim osvrtom na vještačenje u području medicine. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Rijeci, 32(1), pp. 473-508.
Draškić, M. 2015. Komentar Porodičnog zakona. Beograd: Službeni glasnik.
Draškić, M. 2014. Porodično pravo i prava deteta. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
Fulchiron, H. 2006. Egalite, Verite, Stabilite: The New French Filitation Law after the Ordonnance of 4 July 2005. In: Bainham, A. (eds.), International Survey of Family Law. Bristol: Jordan Publishing Limited, pp. 203-216.
Jakovac-Lozić, D. 2011. Prosudbe Europskog suda za ljudska prava temeljene na dosezima suvremenih dokaznih sredstava u paternitetskim postupcima. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, 63(4), pp. 1131-1180.
Jović, O. 2007. Pravo deteta na život, opstanak i razvoj - pravo na prekid trudnoće protiv prava na anonimni porođaj. Pravni život, 10, pp. 395-410.
Jović-Prlainović, O. 2017. Značaj DNK analize u paternitetskim parnicama u okviru prava na poštovanje privatnog života. Pravni život, 10, pp. 179-194.
Jović-Prlainović, O. 2018. Aspekti biomedicinski potpomognute oplodnje - praksa Evropskog suda za ljudska prava. Pravni život, 9, pp. 721-735.
Kovaček-Stanić, G. 2014. Porodično pravo, partnersko, dečje i starateljsko pravo. Novi Sad: Pravni fakultet.
Kovaček-Stanić, G. 2011. Autonomija versus materijlna istina u komparativnom pravu o porodičnom statusu deteta. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 3, pp. 195-222.
Mujović, H. 2018. Sudskomedicinska veštačenja u teoriji i praksi medicinskog prava. Beograd: Institut društvenih nauka.
Obradović, D. 2006. Primena DNK veštačenja od strane javnog tužioca prema novom Zakoniku o krivičnom postupku. U: Implementacija novog Zakonika o krivičnom postupku. Beograd: Pravosudni centar - Udruženje tužilaca Srbije. Dostupno na: https://chrin.org.rs, (10. 2. 2021).
Pejak-Prokeš, O. & Veselinović, I. 2018. Sporovi za utvrđivanje i osporavanje materinstva i očinstva - dokazivnje spornog očinstva medicinskim veštačenjem metodom DNK analize. U: Draškić, M., Šarkić, N. & Arsić, J. (ur.), Porodični zakon - dvanaest godina posle. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta Union, Službeni glasnik, pp. 297-306.
Ponjavić, Z. 2004. Primena DNK otiska u postupku utvrđivanja porekla deteta. Pravni život, 9, pp. 895-916.
Roagna, I. 2012. Zaštita prava na poštivanje privatnog i porodičnog života prema Evropskoj konvenciji o ljudskim pravima. Strasbourg: Generalni direktorat za ljudska prava i vladavinu prava, Vijeće Evrope.
Internet izvori
Centar za genetiku. n.d. Dostupno na: http://www.dnk.rs, (22. 1. 2021).
Pravni izvori
Srbija
Ustav Republike Srbije, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 98/2006.
Porodični zakon, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 18/2005, 72/2011 i 6/2015.
Zakon o uređenju sudova, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 116/2008, 104/2009, 101/2010, 31/2011, 78/2011, 101/2011, 101/2013, 106/15, 40/2015, 13/2016, 108/2016, 113/2017, 65/2018,87/2018,88/2018.
Zakon o parničnom postupku, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 72/2011, 49/2013, 74/2013, 55/2014, 87/2018 i 18/2020.
Zakon o ratifikaciji Konvencije o zaštiti ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, Službeni list SCG - Međunarodni ugovori, br. 9/2003, 5/2005 i 7/2005 (ispr.).
Zakonik o krivičnom postupku, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 72/2011, 101/2011, 121/2012, 32/2013, 45/2013, 55/2014 i 35/2019.
Zakon o nacionalnom DNK registru, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 24/2018.
Sednica Građanskog odeljenja Apelacionog suda u Beogradu, 16. novembar 2015. godine, Bilten Apelacionog suda u Beogradu br. 8, Beograd 2016.
Francuska
Građanski zakonik Francuske. Code Civil. Dostupno na : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGITEXT000006070721/.
Ordonnance No. 2005-759, Journal Officiel du 6 juillet 2005 en vigeur le juillet 2006. Dostupno na: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000451869/.
Zakon o socijalnoj zaštiti i porodici (Code de l’action sociale et des familles), Journal Officiel, 2000-12-23, no 297.
Savet Evrope
Preporuka Saveta Evrope o zaštiti medicinskih podataka (Recommendation No. R (97) 5 on the Protection of Medical Data, Feb. 13, 1997). Dostupno na: https://www.who.int/genomics, (23. 2. 2021).
Sudska praksa
Praksa domaćih sudova
Rešenje Apelacionog suda u Beogradu, Gž. 220/10, 17. 3. 2010.
Presuda Vrhovnog kasacionog suda, Rev. 967/11, 6. 10. 2011.
Praksa Evropskog suda za ljudska prava
Anayo v. Germany, predstavka br. 20578/07, 21. 3. 2011.
Backlung v. Finland, predstavka br. 36498/05, 6. 10. 2010.
Boljević protiv Republike Srbije, predstavka br. 47443/14, 16. 6. 2020. godine, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 98/2020.
Ebru and Tayfun Engin Colak v Turkey, predstavka br. 60176/ 00, 30. 5. 2006.
Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, predstavka br. 10454/83, 7. 7. 1989.
Gronmark v. Finland, predstavka br. 17038/04, 6. 10. 2010.
Haas v. Netherlands, predstavka br. 31322/07, 20. 6. 2011.
Jaggi v. Swetzerland, predstavka br. 58757/00, 13. 7. 2006.
Jevremovićprotiv Republike Srbije, predstavka br. 3150/05, 17. 7.2007. godine.
Kalacheva v. Russia, predstavka br. 3451/05, 7. 5. 2009.
Mikulić v. Croatia, predstavka br. 53176/99, 4.02.2012.
Odievre v. France, predstavka br. 42326/98, 13. 2. 2003.
Rasmussen v. Danmark, predstavka br. 8777/79, 28. 11. 1984.