dokumendiregister.ee
OtsingAsutusedMCP
dokumendiregister.eeAsutusedEesti avalike dokumendiregistrite otsing · nimistu.ee andmetel
Otsing›Riigikohus
Sissetulev kiriAvalik

Pöördumine

Riigikohus · 20. veebruar 2017
Viit
6-1/17-159-1
Registreeritud
20. veebruar 2017
Dokumendi liik
Sissetulev kiri
Adressaat
Tšehhi Ülemkohus
Saabumis/saatmisviis
e-post
Funktsioon
6 Õigusemõistmise üldküsimused ja õigusteabe analüüs
Sari
6-1 Kirjavahetus kodanike ja asutustega õigusemõistmise üldküsimustes
Toimik
6-1/2017
Vastutaja
Maarja Aavik (Riigikohus, Õigusteabe osakond)
Lahendamise tähtaeg
23. veebruar 2017

Failid

  • 📎FW Denial of paternity.msg41 KB

Sisu (failidest)

Saatja: Sulitka Dušan <[email protected]> Saaja: Kadri Nõmm Teema: FW: Denial of paternity Dear Kadri, I have just learned that Ms Lindstrom is currently out of the court. Could you please forward this email (please see the communication below) to her colleagues? Thank you very much. Dušan Sulitka From: Sulitka Dušan Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 7:39 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Denial of paternity Dear Liis, May I have a quick question concerning the definition of “public order” in your country? I am particularly interested in its meaning in the context of time limit for “denial of paternity” (contesting fatherhood). According to the Czech law, time limit for denial of paternity is six months from becoming aware of the facts constituting reasonable doubt about the fatherhood. A court may still, however, decide that the elapsed time limit is waived if required by the child's interest and public order. Is there any similar rule in your country? If so, what are the situations for a conclusion that waiving of time limit is „required by the public order“? According to some literature in the Czech Republic, “public order” might be “the purpose of unification of biological and legal fatherhood”. Nevertheless, I am pretty much concerned about the correctness of this argumentation as this purpose is present in each and every case of contested fatherhood. Therefore, I would be extremely grateful for any clues from your legal order. Even, if you do not have any such rule, could you please write me what are the conditions for waiving elapsed time limit for denial of fatherhood in your country? Any information on the content of „public order“ in the meaning used in family or civil law cases would be also much welcomed. Please, if possible, respond until the end of this week. No comprehensive answers are needed. Just a short note on your system (possibly with English translation of your legal regulation). Do not hesitate to contact me in case of any questions. Thanks a lot. Have a nice week. Dušan Sulitka Vedoucí Oddělení analytiky a srovnávacího práva Head Department of Analytics and Comparative Law Supreme Court Burešova 20, 657 37 Brno Czech Republic Tel.: +420 541 593 437 Mob.: +420 778 544 299 Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Web: www.nsoud.cz <http://www.nsoud.cz>
Allikas: Riigikohus dokumendiregister →