Facts
L. and Mrs. P. were married in Geneva on October 1, 1982. On September 9, 1985, Mrs. L. gave birth to a daughter, J. On September 8, 1989, she filed for divorce. On November 6, 1989, L. filed an action for disavowal of paternity, concluding that he should be declared not to be the father of the child J. Mrs. L. having pleaded the lapse of the action, the court ordered the opening of a preliminary investigation to rule on this objection of substantive law. By judgment of June 11, 1992, the court dismissed the defendant's plea of lapse of the action. Seized of an appeal by Mrs. L., the Court of Justice, by judgment of December 4, 1992, dismissed it and upheld the judgment under appeal. Mrs. L. is filing an appeal for reform against this judgment.Considerations
The Federal Court dismisses the appeal to the extent that it is admissible. It considers that the cantonal court could admit without violating federal law that the time limit for bringing an action for disavowal had only run from December 1988, when L. became aware of his wife's cohabitation with a third party. The discovery of his sterility could certainly have raised doubts about his paternity, but the investigations he subsequently carried out did not provide him with any…