The presence of discrepancies in documents is a common issue faced by citizens when exercising their rights enshrined in law. As a result of discrepancies in documents, the facts that the document itself is meant to confirm are not validated. Such obstacles are encountered, for example, by citizens who wish to exercise their right to receive a work pension, but the discrepancy in their work record does not allow for the identification of the holder.
In cases where discrepancies in documents cannot be corrected by the relevant authority, there arises a necessity to confirm the unverified facts through judicial means. These cases, examined under special procedures, have a number of characteristics and problematic aspects, which suggest that it is advisable to organize them with the assistance of specialists. The characteristics pertain to both the drafting of the application and the correct formulation of the claim, as well as the composition of permissible and relevant evidence, the presentation of which is the only way for the court to recognize the legal fact of belonging to the applicant.
When accepting applications regarding the confirmation of facts about the ownership of rights-enforcing documents, applicants must present evidence to the court that such documents belong to them and that the issuing organization is unable to correct the errors contained in them.
In practice, however, discrepancies are found not only in documents belonging to the applicant but also in those documents that, although not belonging to the applicant, establish facts that create certain rights for the applicant. For example, we can mention the widespread cases in inheritance matters where the establishment of a kinship relationship with a person is hindered by a discrepancy in the birth certificate belonging to them or a third party. In such cases, applicants confirm their kinship with a specific person through judicial means, which, due to legislative inadequacies, is often rejected at the discretion of the courts.
The fact is that although the current legislation includes the establishment of kinship between citizens among the legally significant facts subject to confirmation by the court, it does not serve as an effective mechanism in such cases. According to clarifications provided by the DNA, although advisory, they are practically applied unerringly by the courts, kinship between citizens can only be established when it is confirmed that the relevant documents issued by the Civil Registry Authority have not been preserved and it is impossible to restore them through extrajudicial means. In such cases, the applicant bears the procedural obligation to present to the court the conclusion of the Civil Registry Authority indicating the impossibility of restoring the lost registration. Due to these clarifications, the fulfillment of the requirements for establishing kinship becomes somewhat problematic, based not on the absence of the necessary record preserved in the Civil Registry Authority, but rather on the existing discrepancy within it.
As an alternative, individuals seeking protection of their interests present claims regarding the entries in documents pertaining to a person. Such claims are also unreliable, as they are rejected by the courts due to the absence of a corresponding mechanism for judicial protection and the disregard for the institution of analogy.
Thus, due to the current legislative gaps and the often observed negligence of the courts, it is advisable to undertake the process of confirming legal facts due to discrepancies in documents as soon as possible, as long as the holder of the document is still alive.