CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 septembre 1993

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                                   FIRST CHAMBER                           AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 20777/92                       by V.R. and four others                       against the United Kingdom           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 1 September 1993, the following members being present:              MM.    A. WEITZEL, President                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  G.B. REFFI                  N. BRATZA              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 14 August 1992 by V.R. and four others against the United Kingdom and registered on 7 October 1992 under file No. 20777/92;         Having regard to :   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       19 March 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicant on 13 May 1993;   -      the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows: THE FACTS         The first, second, third and fourth applicants were born in 1951, 1952, 1954 and 1956 respectively; they are resident in Guernsey. The fifth applicant was born in 1955 and is resident in Australia. All the applicants are British citizens. They are represented before the Commission by Mr. Nicholas Barnes, an advocate practising in St. Peter Port, Guernsey.         The facts as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows.         On 7 January 1992, D.J. died leaving an estate of real property in Guernsey worth approximately £100,000. The applicants are the children born out of wedlock of the deceased. Before her death, the deceased had sought advice about the division of her estate from the Guernsey Citizens Advice Bureau since she wished her children to inherit equally. She did not advise them that her children were born out of wedlock and was informed that under Guernsey law her children would inherit equally.         Following their mother's death, the applicants assumed that they would inherit her estate. However their advocates advised them that under Guernsey law, in the absence of express provision in a will, children born out of wedlock cannot inherit from their parents. The deceased's estate was therefore to be inherited by her eight brothers and sisters.         The applicants sought to obtain the legal heirs' consent to a transfer of the estate to them. Following initial indication that the legal heirs agreed to a transfer, the applicants' advocates wrote to them on 6 February 1992 requesting written confirmation.         On 13 February 1992, two replied confirming the agreement. Two further acceptances were received on 20 and 24 February 1992. Notification of a refusal was received on 25 February 1992 and 9 April. On 28 May an acceptance was withdrawn and replaced with an offer to transfer half of the interest. On 29 May a further refusal was received and on 24 June one acceptance was withdrawn. Subsequently, two of the legal heirs have executed a transfer of their interest to the appplicants.     COMPLAINTS         The applicants complain that the provisions of Guernsey law with respect to inheritance from their mother are unfairly discriminatory against them as children born out of wedlock and that this constitutes a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. They also invoke in their reply to the Government's observations Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     THE LAW         The applicants complain of the provisions of Guernsey law which they submit are unfairly discriminatory in respect of their right as children born out of wedlock to inherit on the intestacy of their mother. They invoke Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 and also Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. 14+8+P1-1).         The Government have submitted, inter alia, that the applicants have failed to introduce their complaints within the six month time- limit imposed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention since the applicants' mother died on 7 January 1992 and the application was introduced on 14 August 1992.         The applicants submit that the six month time limit should run from moment that they became aware that the legal heirs would not transfer their interest i.e. the date of the   first refusal which was 25 February 1992. Alternatively they submit that in any case the applicants are complaining about a continuing situation which is the situation resulting from the death of their mother.         The Commission recalls that in the absence of domestic remedies the six month time-limit runs from the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention: where the alleged violation consists of a continuing situation, the six month time-limit has no application unless and until that situation comes to an end (see eg. No.11123/84, Dec. 9.12.87, D.R. 54 p. 52).         In the present case, the essence of the applicants' complaints is the discriminatory effect of Guernsey inheritance and succession provisions. The Commission recalls that similar complaints were in issue in the Marckx case (Eur. Court H.R. Marckx judgment of   13 June 1976 Series A no. 31 ) and the Johnston case (Eur. Court H.R. Johnston judgment of   18 December 1986 Series   A no. 112). In the latter the Court found violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) as regarded the legal situation (including the testamentary and succession aspect) of a child born out of wedlock under Irish law. The basis of this decision was its conclusion that respect for family life required a state to allow ties between the mother and child to develop normally with appropriate social and legal recognition. Both the cases before the Court involved a mother and child born out of wedlock who were both alive. While the relationship subsists, there is in the Commission's view a continuing situation. This situation must however end when the mother dies at which point the rights to her estate are determined. The six month time limit will in the absence of other supervening factors begin to run from that date.         The applicants have submitted that the decisive date should be that when they became aware that the legal heirs would not transfer their interest. The Commission considers however that these private negotiations   which involved no dispute as to the legal rights to the estate cannot be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the six month time-limit.           In light of the above, the Commission finds that the time-limit began to run on 7 January 1992 whereas the applicantion was introduced more than six months later on 14 August 1992. It follows that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.         For these reasons the Commission unanimously         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber         (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                      (A. WEITZEL)