5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Tampere. 6.  The applicant was born out of wedlock. In 1961 the District Court, after having heard witnesses on the relationship between the applicant’s mother and K.R., ordered K.R. to pay child support to the applicant. K.R. had also told the applicant and his mother that he was in fact the father of the applicant. 7.  On 1 October 1976 the Paternity Act (isyyslaki, lagen om faderskap) came into force. The transitional provisions in the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act (laki isyyslain toimeenpanosta, lagen angående införande av lagen om faderskap) state that paternity proceedings with regard to a child born before the entry into force of the law had to be initiated within five years, that is, before 1 October 1981. Moreover, no claim could be examined after the death of the father. No such restrictions exist for children born after the entry into force of the Paternity Act. 8.  K.R. died in August 1999. Subsequently, the applicant found out that K.R. had not been legally registered as his father. 9.  On 15 May 2003 the applicant initiated paternity proceedings against the heirs of K.R. in the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). He requested the court to confirm that K.R. was his father. He referred, inter alia, to the Convention. 10.  On 22 August 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that as the applicant was born before the entry into force of the Paternity Act, he should have brought the claim within the statutory five-year time-limit and at the latest on 1 October 1981. Making a reference to the Convention did not change the fact that the applicant had lost his right to initiate the proceedings on 1 October 1981. His claim was therefore time-barred. 11.  On 27 August 2003 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) claiming, inter alia, that the District Court could not just ignore the Convention as it was to be given priority vis-à-vis the national legislation. Moreover, nowadays it was possible to obtain conclusive evidence, through DNA tests, to establish paternity. Section 7, subsection 2, of the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act had in fact become obsolete, a provision that had lost its acceptability and applicability. 12.  On 19 May 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision. It found, in addition to the District Court’s reasoning, that no legal impediment had prevented the applicant from initiating the proceedings within the five-year time-limit and that this time-limit was unconditional. 13.  On 27 May 2004 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), reiterating the grounds for appeal already presented before the Court of Appeal. 14.  On 4 February 2005 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.