003-7773491-10769924

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 279 (2023)   12.10.2023   Judgments and decisions of 12 October 2023   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 12 judgments1 and 25 decisions 2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below;   a separate press release has been issued for one other Chamber judgment in the case of Total S.A.   v. France and Vitol S.A. v. France (application nos. 34634/18 et 43546/18);   nine Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the 25 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).   C.P. and M.N. v. France (nos. 56513/17 and 56515/17)*   The applicants, C.P. and M.N., are French nationals who were born in 1965 and 1967 respectively   and live in Paris.   The applicant M.N. and her former partner lived together from 15 July 2005 until the beginning of   March 2012. Two children were born in the course of their cohabitation. The second child, N., was   legally recognised by M.N.’s former partner before his birth. At the beginning of March 2012 M.N.   left her former partner and on 14 March 2012 she entered into a civil partnership with the applicant   C.P.   On 14 November 2012 C.P. brought proceedings against N.’s legal father to have the latter’s   recognition of paternity declared null and void and his own paternity in respect of N. legally   recognised.   In parallel, on 12 December 2012, M.N. applied to the family-affairs judge, requesting that certain   measures be imposed concerning the two children and that alternating residence arrangements be   introduced. In the course of those proceedings, she referred to the action contesting paternity   brought in parallel by C.P.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of   Human Rights, the applicants complain about the domestic courts’ refusal to examine C.P.’s action   contesting the legal father’s paternity, for the purpose of having C.P.’s paternity established. They   submit that by declaring that action inadmissible, the domestic courts applied the grounds for   refusal provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 333 of the Civil Code too rigidly, in that they gave   precedence to a purely procedural requirement in an excessively formalistic manner. They allege   that those same courts thus failed to strike a fair balance between the competing rights and   interests at stake.   No violation of Article 8   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s   delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five   judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,   judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   S.S. and Others v. Hungary (nos. 56417/19 and 44245/20)   The applicants are seven Yemeni nationals who live in Vienna (Austria) and three Afghan nationals   who live in Hamburg (Germany). They are two families.   The case concerns the applicants’ alleged collective expulsion from Hungary to Serbia without an   individualised assessment of their situation. They were stopped in Budapest International Airport in   April 2019 arriving from Istanbul in the case of the Yemeni applicants (no. 56417/19), and December   arriving from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) in the case of the Afghan applicants (no. 44245/20).   They attempted to enter Hungary using falsified travel documents. After they had requested asylum,   the Hungarian authorities removed them to Serbia.   Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) and Article 3   (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention, the applicants   complain that they were part of a collective expulsion, and that they were expelled to Serbia, which   did not have an adequate asylum procedure, without an assessment of their risk of ill-treatment   there.   Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4   Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment)   Just satisfaction:   Non-pecuniary damage: 10,000 euros (EUR) to the first to seventh applicants jointly and EUR 7,000   to the eighth to tenth applicants jointly   Costs and expenses: EUR 3,000 to the applicants jointly   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   2