| Titre | L'établissement et les conséquences de la filiation maternelle et paternelle en droit européen | |
|---|---|---|
| Auteur | Rainer Frank | |
 |
Revue | Revue internationale de droit comparé |
| Numéro | vol. 51, no. 1, 1999 | |
| Rubrique / Thématique | ÉTUDES |
|
| Page | 29-50 | |
| Résumé | d'emblée, sans exception, et sans un examen des faits de leur cause, la possibilité d'intenter une action en déclaration judiciaire de leur paternité, serait indéfendable, semble-t-il. D'autre part, il convient de se poser la question de savoir si des examens sanguins ou génétiques servant à établir la paternité peuvent également être imposés contre son gré à l'une des parties afin de venir en aide à l'enfant qui ferait valoir son «droit» de connaître ses origines. Une autre différence relative au statut des enfants concerne le droit de garde : si, en effet, les parents d'enfants nés dans le mariage en obtiennent automatiquement la garde conjointe, les conditions dans lesquels les parents non mariés peuvent obtenir la garde conjointe varient considérablement en Europe. Quant aux créances alimentaires, il n'existe aujourd'hui plus aucune distinction entre celles d'enfants nés dans le mariage et celles d'enfants nés hors mariage. Par contre, le principe de l'obligation d'entretien pesant sur tous les parents en ligne directe, qui existe dans lès systèmes juridiques romains et allemand comme dans ceux d'Europe de l'Est, ne semble plus être à jour, eu égard aux importants bouleversements qu'a subis notre société ces dernières années. | |
| Résumé anglais | The question whether a child's parents are married still features a central role in the determination of paternity. While in the case of children born in wedlock, the maxim pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant is décisive, paternity in the case of children born out of wedlock, is established by means of voluntary acknowledgement or declaratory judgement. The paterest rule, which is internationally acknowledged as a maxim; is however loosing its significance in the European legal orders, in as far as it is becoming possible for an expanding circle of persons to contest the presumption of legitimacy, within an extended period of limitation. In this context it seems problematic, thatthe biological father, in many légal Systems has no standing to challenge the paternity* It seems unacceptable thatfathers, which are not married to the mother of the child, but who nevertheless demonstrate a realinterest in the child, are precluded from the outset and without exception, with a disregard for the individual circumsiances, from having their paternity legally acknowledged. Conversely, the question needs to be discussed, as to whether the physical compulsion to undergo blood — or DNA —tests for the determination of parentage, ought to be allowed in order to enable the practical enforcement of a contingent right of a child, to gain knowledge of its origin. Afurther difference between children born in wedlock and those born out of wedlock is evident in Custody Law. While in the case of children born in wedlock, both parents have a joint right of custody, the conditions under which couples, which are not married, can have joint right of custody, vary greatly in the European legal Systems. Finally, with regard to Maintenance Law, there exist no longer différences between daims by children born in wedlock and children born out of wedlock. However, the obligation to pay maintenance by allpersons related in direct Une, which is in force in the Romanesque — and Germon legal Systems as well as in Eastern Europe, is due to a changea social reality, no longer up to date. | |
| Article en ligne | http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/ridc_0035-3337_1999_num_51_1_18317 |
