4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Budapest. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be submitted as follows. 6.  The applicant lived in conjugal community with S.S. During their relationship, S.S. gave birth to a boy on 24 June 1998. The child was registered under his mother’s family name. For the first five months the couple raised the child together. Subsequently, the relationship deteriorated and the applicant left their common home. 7.  Since the applicant’s parental status had not been resolved legally, he repeatedly initiated proceedings for an official declaration of paternity (teljes hatályú apai elismerő nyilatkozat). However, the mother refused to give her consent to the statement, which is required by law for such a statement to be valid. Moreover, the mother has not allowed the applicant to see the child at all. 8.  In January 2000 the applicant brought an action against the child and the mother before the Pest Central District Court asking the court to establish paternity. 9.  Between April 2000 and July 2001 the District Court held five unsuccessful hearings, which the mother did not attend despite a fine being imposed on her. The District Court sought assistance from the police in order to secure her presence at the hearings but to no avail. 10.  In November 2001 a medical expert examined the applicant and the child. The expert could not establish with complete certainty whether the applicant was the father of the child or not, but she “believed it probable”. 11.  In the meantime, a third individual, G.N., made a formal declaration of paternity which was accepted by the mother. Since the paternal status had been resolved, the District Court terminated the proceedings in January 2002. 12.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court in April 2002. 13.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court suspended the procedure and initiated a constitutional review of the applicable legal provisions to be applied in December 2002. 14.  According to the information submitted by the parties, the case is still pending before the Constitutional Court and consequently before the District Court.