Revision of European Court of Human Rights, September 07, 2004 (case HAAS v. THE NETHERLANDS)

• President: Mr J.-P. Costa
• Defense: the Netherlands
• Resolution Date: September 07, 2004

SECOND SECTION

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REVISION

Application no. 36983/97

by Pieter Jelle HAAS

against the Netherlands

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7†September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J.-P. Costa, President,

Mr L. Loucaides,

Mr C. BÓrsan,

Mr K. Jungwiert,

Mr V. Butkevych,

Mrs W. Thomassen,

Mrs A. Mularoni, judges,

and Mrs S. DollÈ, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 December 1995,

Having regard to the judgment delivered on 13 January 2004;

Having regard to the applicant's request on 23 June 2004 for the revision of the judgment, pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Pieter Jelle Haas, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1964 and lives in Hilversum. He was represented before the Court by Mr A.W.M. Willems, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.

In his original application, the applicant claimed to be the unrecognized illegitimate child of his putative father, from whom†he was unable to inherit. He alleged a violation of the Articles 14 and 8 of the Convention taken together.

In a judgment delivered on 13 January 2004, the Court held that there had been no violation of those provisions because Article 8 was not applicable in the circumstances of the case since it was not established that the applicant was the son of the putative father.

After the judgment it appeared from a report of the Forensic Laboratory for DNA Research, dated 16 February 2004,† that 'it [was] more than 100,000 times more likely that the saliva on the gummed edge [of certain envelopes] came from the biological father of [the applicant] than from another man chosen at random'.

On 5 April 2004 the applicant†informed the Court of the factual developments†which had occurred after its judgment†and requested that†his case be referred to the Grand Chamber (Article 43 ß 1 of the Convention). On 14 June 2004 a Panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber (Article 43 ߆2) decided not to accept this request.

On 23 June 2004 the applicant asked...