The applicant had a relationship with A.Z. In spring 2006 A.Z. gave birth to a son, A.E.Z. On an unspecified date the applicant suggested to A.Z. that they officially register the birth and record his paternity in the register of births, but she refused. A few months later, the applicant found out that a certain A.L. had voluntarily acknowledged paternity and had been registered as A.E.Z.’s father.
While legal proceedings were underway in Latvia in connection with A.L.'s disputed paternity, A.Z married H.V. and moved with the child to Estonia where Estonian authorities agreed to the adoption of A.E.Z. by H.V, thus replacing A.L. by H.V. as A.E.Z.’s father on the documents without the applicant being informed of this.
The applicant then brought an action in Estonia against this new adoption, but his case was dismissed on the grounds that he had not been the person (the father) entitled to challenge the adoption decision, as the Latvian courts had not yet made a final decision recognising his paternity.
The ECHR finds that the Estonian Court, when deciding on A.E.Z.’s adoption by H.V., was or at least ought to have been aware of the applicant’s paternity proceedings pending in Latvia and, therefore, the domestic authorities showed a serious lack of diligence in relation to the adoption proceedings (consid. 103).
The Court stresses the highly specific and complex nature of the present case. The paternity proceedings in Latvia – which were still ongoing at the time the Estonian courts were called upon to decide on the adoption and its annulment – lasted for an exceptionally long time. However, what is at stake in the present case is not the responsibility of the Latvian authorities, but that of the Estonian State (consid. 117).
In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that by not identifying and examining the particular circumstances of the case and by not carrying out an assessment of the various rights and interests of the individuals involved, including those of the applicant, in either the adoption proceedings or annulment proceedings, the Estonian domestic authorities failed to strike a fair balance in the context of Article 8 of the Convention (consid. 120).

Direct access to the decision: (hudoc.echr.coe.int)