Dismissal of the paternity suit due to expiration

Facts

Miss S.R. gave birth in Geneva on 8 February 1965 to an illegitimate daughter whom she named St. Curator X. filed a paternity suit against the presumed father, L. B., by submitting a conciliation petition on 19 January 1966, i.e. before the expiration of the one-year time limit set out in Art. 308 CC. However, the curator did not proceed within the one-month time limit set by Art. 67(2) of the Geneva CPC to summon the defendant before the Court of First Instance after the failed conciliation attempt. On 18 April 1966, the curator filed a new writ of summons, but the one-year expiration period of Art. 308 CC had then expired. The Federal Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Geneva Court of Justice declaring the paternity suit inadmissible due to expiration.

Considerations

The Federal Tribunal considered that the contested judgment was a final decision within the meaning of Art. 48(1) FJA, as it definitively terminated the proceedings without addressing the merits.

Regarding the application of Art. 139 CO, the Federal Tribunal ruled that this legal provision applied not only to limitation periods, but also to expiration or forfeiture periods provided for by federal law, such as the one-year period set out in Art. 308 CC for filing a paternity suit. However, the Federal Tribunal held that the curator could not benefit from…