AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 19345/92
                      by B.H.
                      against Austria


      The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 14 October 1992, the following members being present:

           MM.   J.A. FROWEIN, President of the First Chamber
                 F. ERMACORA
                 E. BUSUTTIL
                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
           Sir   Basil HALL
           Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS
           Mrs.  J. LIDDY
           MM.   M. PELLONPÄÄ
                 B. MARXER

           Mr.   M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First Chamber

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 23 December 1991
by B.H. against Austria and registered on 15 January 1992 under file
No. 19345/92;

      Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the
applicant, may be summarised as follows.

      The applicant, born in 1967, is an Austrian national and resident
at Brig in Switzerland.  Before the Commission she is represented by
Mr. K. Krückl, a lawyer practising in Linz.

A.    Particular circumstances of the case

      On 22 November 1985 the applicant, who was not married, gave
birth to a child.  On 16 January 1986 Mr. M. recognised paternity.

      On 25 May 1989 the Linz-Land District Court (Bezirksgericht)
appointed Mr. M. as the child's guardian.  The District Court found
that this measure was in the interest of the child's well-being.  The
Court noted in particular that, following the child's birth, the
applicant and Mr. M. had lived together.  In 1987 the applicant had
left Mr. M. and her child and taken up employment in Styria.  In
October 1987 the Linz-Land District Court, in agreement with the
applicant and the child's statutory guardian at that time, had
instructed Mr. M. to take care and educate the child.  The applicant
had meanwhile taken up employment in Switzerland, paid maintenance, but
did not entertain any contacts with Mr. M. or the child.

      On 9 April 1991 the applicant, represented by Mr. Krückl,
requested the Linz Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) to
bring paternity proceedings under S. 164 c of the Austrian Civil Code
(Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch).  She contested the paternity of
Mr. M. and claimed that Mr. P. was the child's father.  She submitted
that the relevant period had been beginning of February 1985 when she
had had regular sexual intercourse with Mr. P., not with Mr. M.

      The Linz Public Prosecutor's Office heard Mr. P. on 13 May 1991.
He confirmed to have had a sexual relationship with the applicant in
the beginning of 1985.  Mr. M. was heard on 24 June 1991.  He stated
that, after her relationship with Mr. P., the applicant had again had
her menstruation so that he had never doubted his paternity.  In the
past the applicant had never raised any such doubts.

      On 16 July 1991 the Linz Public Prosecutor's Office informed
Mr. Krückl that it did not intend to bring paternity proceedings.

B.    Domestic law

      SS. 163 et seq. of the Austrian Civil Code concern the paternity
in respect of children born out of wedlock.  S. 163 b provides that
paternity is established by judgment or recognition; its establishment
is generally binding.  S. 163 b regulates conditions and procedural
aspects for recognising paternity.

      S. 163 d provides that the mother and the child are entitled to
file objections against the recognition within one year from the time
that they became aware of the recognition.  According to S. 164 the
court has to declare a recognition void in case of such objections.

      Under S. 164 c para. 1 (1) the child born out of wedlock may
bring paternity proceedings against the putative father.  According to
S. 164 c para. 1 (2) the man, whose recognition became void because of
objections, can bring paternity proceedings against the child.  Under
S. 164 c para. 1 (3) the Public Prosecutor's Office may institute, in
the public interest or in the interest of the child concerned,
paternity proceedings against the putative father, if there are
reasonable doubts as to the paternity of the person who recognised.

COMPLAINTS

      The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that
under Austrian law she and her child had only one year to object to the
recognition of paternity by Mr. M.  She submits that since spring 1991
she has doubts as to the paternity of Mr. M.


THE LAW

1.    The applicant complains about the statutory time-limit under
Austrian law to raise objections against the recognition of paternity
by Mr. M. in respect of her child born out of wedlock.  The applicant
considers that the legal impediment to have her child's natural father
determined in paternity proceedings amounts to a violation of Article 8
(Art. 8) of the Convention.  Article 8 (Art. 8) provides:

      "1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
      family life, his home and his correspondence.

      2.   There shall be no interference by a public authority with
      the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with
      the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests
      of national security, public safety or the economic well-being
      of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
      protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
      rights and freedoms of others."

2.    It appears that the applicant also wishes to raise her complaint
before the Commission on behalf of her child born out of wedlock in
November 1986.

      The Commission notes that in 1987 the applicant left her child
with Mr. M. who had recognised paternity.  In October 1987 Mr. M., with
her agreement, had been instructed to take care and educate the child.
In May 1989 the Linz-Land District Court appointed Mr. M. as the
child's guardian.  According to the findings in this decision, the
applicant had meanwhile taken up employment in Switzerland, paid
maintenance, but did not entertain any contacts with Mr. M. or the
child.

      The Commission, having regard to the applicant's legal and
factual relationship with her child as well as the object of her
complaint before the Commission, namely her child's legal relationship
with Mr. M., finds that the applicant is not able to raise, in
accordance with Article 25 para . 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention,
complaints on behalf of her child.

3.    As regards the applicant's complaint on her own behalf, the
Commission considers that the applicant's interest to have her child's
natural father determined may be considered as a matter of her private
and family life within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1)
(cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur. court H.R., Rasmussen judgment of 28
November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 13, para. 33).

      The Commission notes that, in accordance with S. 163 d para. 1
of the Austrian Civil Code, the applicant had the opportunity to file
objections against the recognition of paternity by Mr. M. within one
year from the time that she became aware of the recognition.

      The Commission observes that, in paternity matters, the
Contracting States are entitled to think that the introduction of time-
limits is justified to ensure legal certainty and the interests of the
child (cf. Rasmussen judgment, loc. cit., p. 15, para. 41).

      The Commission considers that, pursuant to S. 163 d para. 1 of
the Austrian Civil Code, the applicant had a reasonable opportunity to
clarify all aspects regarding the recognition of paternity in question
and possibly to raise objections.  The Commission notes that, at the
time of recognition of paternity, the applicant lived together with
Mr. M. and her child, later she left her child with him and agreed that
he be in charge of caring for and educating her child, while she was
living and working abroad.  The applicant claims that only in spring
1991 she became doubts as to the paternity of Mr. M.  However, her
submissions in this respect do not disclose any new circumstance which
had not been known to her at the time after recognition by Mr. M.

      In these circumstances the Commission finds that the statutory
time-limit to raise objections against recognition of paternity does
not disclose any lack of respect for the applicant's private and family
life.  Consequently there is no indication of a breach of Article 8
(Art. 8) of the Convention.

      It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.


      Accordingly, the Commission, unanimously,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber

      (M. de SALVIA)                         (J.A. FROWEIN)