CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 19 décembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD86A583 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s9C5635B3 { width:78.7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE01501FE { width:2.52pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s35FD71C2 { width:185.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8CE0427 { width:0pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8698C878 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:19.85pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s8F25B88A { font-family:Arial; color:#191919 } .sDF0D4775 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#191919 } .sA7519564 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#191919 } .sE872AC7E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s382C212A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8934192D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1C8B5CE1 { width:147.94pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10AB3CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#222222 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       GRAND CHAMBER             CASE OF MOLLA SALI v. GREECE   (Application no. 20452/14)                     JUDGMENT (Merits)   STRASBOURG   19 December 2018           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Molla Sali v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President,   Angelika Nußberger,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Robert Spano,   Ledi Bianku,   Kristina Pardalos,   Julia Laffranque,   Paul Lemmens,   Aleš Pejchal,   Egidijus Kūris,   Branko Lubarda,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Tim Eicke, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 6 December 2017 and 8 November 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 20452/14) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Greek national, Mrs Chatitze Molla Sali (“the applicant”), on 5 March 2014. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr   Y.   Ktistakis and Mr K.   Tsitselikis, lawyers practising in Athens and Thessaloniki respectively. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent’s Delegates, Mr K. Georghiadis and Ms V. Pelekou, Advisers at the State Legal Council, and Ms A. Magrippi, Legal Assistant at the State Legal Council. 3.     The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, in the context of a case concerning the inheritance rights to the property of her deceased husband. 4.     The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court). On 23   August   2016 the President of the Section decided, in accordance with Rule 54   §   2   (b), to give notice of the aforementioned complaints to the respondent Government. On 6 June 2017 a Chamber of that Section, composed of Kristina Pardalos, President, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Ledi Bianku, Aleš Pejchal, Armen Harutyunyan, Pauline Koskelo and Tim Eicke, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar, relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, neither of the parties having objected (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72). 5.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was decided in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. Judge Pardalos, whose term of office expired in the course of the proceedings, continued to deal with the case (Article 23 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 23 § 4). 6.     The applicant and the Government each filed written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. Christian Concern, the Hellenic League for Human Rights and Greek Helsinki Monitor, which had all been given leave to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3), also submitted comments. 7.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 6 December 2017. There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Ms   V. Pelekou , Adviser, State Legal Council,   Agent , Ms   A. Magrippi , Legal Assistant, State Legal Council, Ms   M. Telalian , Director, Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Counsel , Mr   E. Kastanas , Legal Adviser, Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Adviser ; (b)     for the applicant Mr   K. Tsitselikis , lawyer and professor at the University of Macedonia, Mr   Y. Ktistakis , lawyer and assistant professor at the University of Thrace, Counsel; Mr   D. Memet , lawyer,   Adviser; Mr   O.F. Cankat, Mr   T. Unay .   On behalf of the applicant .   The Court heard addresses by Mr Tsitselikis and Mr Ktistakis for the applicant, and by Ms Magrippi, Ms Telalian and Ms Pelekou for the Government, as well as their replies to the questions put by the judges. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 8.     The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Komotini. 9.     The applicant’s husband, Moustafa Molla Sali, a member of the Muslim community of Thrace, died on 21 March 2008. On 7 February 2003 he had drawn up a notarised public will in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code. He had bequeathed his whole estate to his wife, namely: one-third of a 2,000 sq. m plot of farmland near Komotini; one-half of a 127 sq. m apartment, a parking space and a basement in a block of flats in Komotini; one-quarter of a shop in Komotini with a surface area of 24 sq. m, and another shop measuring 31 sq. m in Komotini, which was subsequently expropriated in return for compensation that has already been paid to the applicant; and four properties in Istanbul. 10.     By decision no.   12.785/2003 of 10 June 2008 the Komotini Court of First Instance, on the basis of a next-of-kin certificate submitted by the applicant, approved the will presented before it. On 6 April 2010 the applicant accepted her husband’s estate by notarised deed. The Treasury was notified and the applicant registered the property transferred to her with the Komotini Land Registry, paying the corresponding registration fees. It does not appear from the case file that the applicant had to pay any inheritance tax on the property transferred to her. A.     Proceedings in the Rodopi Court of First Instance 11.     On 12 December 2009, meanwhile, the deceased’s two sisters had challenged the validity of the will before the Rodopi Court of First Instance. They asserted a claim to three-quarters of the property bequeathed. They submitted that they and the deceased belonged to the Thrace Muslim community and that therefore any questions relating to his estate were subject to Islamic religious law (Sharia law) and the jurisdiction of the mufti, rather than to the provisions of the Civil Code. They contended that the application of Muslim customs and Sharia law to Greek nationals of Muslim faith was laid down in the provisions of Article 14 § 1 of the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres (ratified by decree of 29 September/ 30   October 1923) and Articles 42 and 45 of the Treaty of Lausanne (ratified by decree of 25   August 1923) (see paragraphs 65-68 below). They argued that the law of succession applicable to Muslims was based on intestacy rather than testacy. Under Islamic law, where the deceased was survived by close relatives, the will only served to complement the intestate succession. Those provisions had continued to apply after the adoption of the Greek Civil Code, pursuant to section 6 of the Introductory Law to the Code, solely in respect of Greek nationals of Muslim faith living in Thrace. 12.     By judgment no. 50/2010 of 1 June 2010, the Rodopi Court of First Instance dismissed the challenge brought by the deceased’s sisters. It held that applying the Islamic law of succession to Greek Muslims in such a way as to prevent them from disposing of their property in anticipation of their death gave rise to unacceptable discrimination on grounds of religious beliefs. It found that the consequent inability of such persons to draw up a public will was in breach of Article 4 (principle of equality), Article 5 § 1 (free development of personality), Article 5 § 2 (principle of non-discrimination) and Article   13 § 1 (freedom of religious conscience) of the Constitution, as well as Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The court emphasised that even if it should be inferred from section 5(2) of Law no.   1920/1991 (ratifying the Legislative Act of 24   December 1990 on Muslim ministers of religion) that inheritance matters for Muslims were governed by Sharia law, such law should be applied in a manner compatible with the Constitution and the Convention. The incompatibility in the present case had stemmed from interpreting the Islamic law of succession in such a way as to deprive the persons concerned of some of their civil rights, against their wishes. The court added that although the application of Sharia law was based, inter alia , on international law, and in particular on the combined effect of Articles 42 and 45 of the Treaty of Lausanne, it should not result in the Islamic law of succession being applied in such a way as to curtail the civil rights of Greek Muslims, because the aim of the treaty had not been to deprive the members of that minority of such rights, but to strengthen their protection. 13.     The court pointed out that a Greek Muslim contacting a notary in order to draw up a public will was exercising his right to dispose of his property, in anticipation of his death, under the same conditions as other Greek citizens. It was consequently impossible to annul the will or to override any of its legal effects on the grounds that a will of that kind was prohibited by Sharia law. Upholding the claimants’ arguments would thus amount to introducing an unacceptable difference in treatment among Greek nationals on the grounds of their religious beliefs. B.     Proceedings in the Thrace Court of Appeal 14.     On 16 June 2010 the deceased’s sisters appealed against the aforementioned judgment. 15.     On 28 September 2011 the Thrace Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal (judgment no.   392/2011). It emphasised, firstly, that the legislative provisions enacted pursuant to the Treaties of Sèvres and Lausanne had been intended to protect Greek nationals of Muslim faith and were in conformity with the Constitution and the Convention. That applied both to Islamic wills and to intestate succession, and the mufti had no jurisdiction in relation to public wills. The court held that since the testator was free to choose the type of will he wished to draw up in the exercise of his rights and therefore to draw up a public will in accordance with Article   1724 of the Civil Code, he was not obliged to follow Islamic law, which did not cover matters relating to such wills. Furthermore, the mufti had no jurisdiction over the testator’s wishes, which could not be circumscribed. Otherwise, there would be discrimination on grounds of religion, which was unlawful under the general rules on prohibition of discrimination. 16.     More specifically, the Court of Appeal noted that the decision taken by the deceased, a Greek citizen of Muslim faith belonging to the Thrace Muslim religious minority, to ask a notary to draw up a public will, choosing personally to decide how and to whom he would bequeath his property, fell within his legal right to dispose of his property in anticipation of his death, under the same conditions as other Greek nationals. C.     Proceedings in the Court of Cassation 17.     On 23 January 2012 the deceased’s sisters lodged an appeal on points of law. 18.     By judgment no. 1862/2013 of 7 October 2013 and on the basis of a provision of international law, namely Article 11 of the 1913 Treaty of Athens, and provisions of domestic law, namely section 4 of Law no.   147/1914, section 10 of Law no. 2345/1920 (enacted pursuant to the 1913 Treaty of Athens) and section 5(2) of Law no.   1920/1991 the Court of Cassation allowed the appeal. It noted that section 10 of Law no.   2345/1920 (on the provisional Arch-Mufti and muftis serving Muslims residing in the territory) reproduced the contents of Article 11 § 8.1 of the Treaty of Athens, pursuant to which muftis exercised their jurisdiction over Muslims in the spheres of marriage, divorce, maintenance payments, guardianship, trusteeship, capacity of minors, Islamic wills and intestate succession. It emphasised that the law governing interpersonal relations among Greek nationals of Muslim faith, as laid down in the above-mentioned treaty ratified by Greece, was, pursuant to Article 28 § 1 of the Constitution, an integral part of Greek domestic law and prevailed over any other legal provision to the contrary. Examining the reasoning of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, it concluded that that court’s determination of the case had breached the relevant legislative provisions, because the law applicable to the deceased person’s estate had been the Islamic law of succession, which formed part of domestic law and applied specifically to Greek nationals of Muslim faith. It noted that the estate in question belonged to the category of property held “in full ownership” ( mulkia ) – public land which had belonged to the Ottoman administration, the full ownership of which had been transferred to private individuals and which had been governed by Sharia law during the Ottoman occupation – and that, consequently, the impugned public will had to be deemed invalid and devoid of legal effect on the grounds that Sharia law recognised no such institution. 19.     The Court of Cassation remitted the case to the Thrace Court of Appeal. D.     Proceedings in the Court of Appeal following remittal of the case 20.     By judgment no. 183/2015 of 15 December 2015 the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment delivered by the Rodopi Court of First Instance on 1 June 2010. In line with the Court of Cassation’s judgment, it held that the relevant legislative provisions had been intended to protect Greek nationals of Muslim faith, constituted a special body of law and did not breach the principle of equality secured under Article 4 of the Constitution or the right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article   6 of the Convention. It pointed out that the law applicable to the deceased’s estate had been Sharia law, because the property bequeathed belonged to the “ mulkia ” category, and that consequently the public will at issue was devoid of legal effect because Sharia law did not recognise any such institution. It emphasised that the judgments of the Court of Cassation were binding on the courts to which cases were remitted as regards the legal issues determined by those judgments. It therefore considered itself bound by the Court of Cassation’s judgment of 7 October 2013 and could not overrule it, thus being unable to allow a request by the applicant to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of section 5(2) of Law no. 1920/1991 and of Article 45 of the Treaty of Lausanne. Since an appeal on points of law was lodged against that judgment, it was not immediately enforceable. E.     Proceedings in the Court of Cassation concerning the Court of Appeal’s judgment after remittal of the case 21.     On 8 February 2016 the applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and the hearing in the Court of Cassation was scheduled for 11 January 2017. She put forward a number of grounds of appeal. 22.     In her first ground of appeal she submitted that the impugned judgment had been insufficiently reasoned as regards one specific point which she considered to have had a decisive influence on the outcome of the proceedings, namely that it had ignored the question whether her husband had been a “practising Muslim”, which was a precondition for the application of the special body of law. 23.     The applicant’s second ground of appeal was that section 5(2) of Law no. 1920/1991 and certain Articles of the Civil Code had been incorrectly interpreted and applied. She submitted that the impugned judgment had extended the scope of the provisions creating a separate body of law for Greek nationals of Muslim faith to members of the Muslim community who did not faithfully adhere to Islamic doctrine. 24.     The applicant argued in conclusion that those grounds of appeal had not been encompassed in the legal issue determined by judgment no.   1862/2013 of the Court of Cassation. She pointed out that that judgment had concerned Greek nationals of Muslim faith in general and had not addressed the matter of the law applicable to non-practising members of the Muslim community. 25.     In her additional observations, the applicant contended that the case, which concerned the drawing up of a public will, a possibility afforded to all Greek citizens regardless of religious considerations, fell outside the mufti’s jurisdiction. The specific provisions concerning the Muslim minority could not, in her submission, be applied without violating the individual rights of Muslims as guaranteed under the Greek Constitution, as well as by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 26.     By judgment no. 556/2017 of 6 April 2017 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on points of law. It did not refer to the Convention in its reasoning. 27.     As regards the applicant’s first ground of appeal, it declared it inadmissible, finding that it was based on the extent of the deceased’s religious sentiment as a Muslim, a criterion that had no legal effect. It added that the deceased’s Greek nationality did not preclude the application of Sharia law. 28.     As regards the second ground of appeal, the Court of Cassation held that the Court of Appeal’s judgment had contained sound reasons, in line with the Court of Cassation’s judgment no. 1862/2013. It emphasised that the Court of Appeal had assessed the facts of the case in the light of substantive law and had given sufficient reasons for its determination of the fundamental issue of recognising the invalidity of the will. 29.     That judgment marked the end of the proceedings in respect of the property located in Greece. 30.     As a result of the whole proceedings, the applicant was deprived of three-quarters of the property bequeathed. F.     Proceedings in the Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance 31.     In 2011, meanwhile, the testator’s sisters had applied to the Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance for the annulment of the will, in accordance with the principles of private international law enshrined in the Turkish Civil Code. They submitted that the will was contrary to Turkish public policy. Hearings were held on 9 February and 26 May 2016, but the court adjourned its consideration of the case on the grounds that the applicant still had to appeal on points of law against judgment no.   183/2015 of the Thrace Court of Appeal. The new hearing in the case was scheduled for 28   September 2017, and then adjourned until 18 January 2018. By the date of the present judgment the Court had yet to be informed of the progress of those proceedings. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     The Constitution 32.     The relevant Articles of the Constitution provide: Article 4 “1.     All Greeks are equal before the law. 2.     Greek men and women have equal rights and equal obligations. ...” Article 5 “1.     All persons shall have the right to develop freely their personality and to participate in the social, economic and political life of the country, in so far as they do not infringe the rights of others or violate the Constitution and moral values. 2.     All persons living within the Greek territory shall enjoy full protection of their life, honour and liberty irrespective of nationality, race or language and of religious or political beliefs. ...” Article 13 § 1 “Freedom of religious conscience is inviolable. The enjoyment of civil rights and liberties does not depend on the individual’s religious beliefs.” Article 20 § 1 “Every person shall be entitled to receive legal protection by the courts and may plead before them his views concerning his rights or interests, as specified by law.” B.     The Civil Code 33.     The relevant Articles of the Civil Code provide as follows: Article 1724 “A public will shall be drawn up on the basis of a declaration of the testator’s final wishes, as received by a notary in the presence of three witnesses, or of a second notary and one witness, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1725 to 1737.” Article 1769 “Any notary with whom a will has been deposited must, on learning of the testator’s death, send a copy of the will to the registrar of the competent court of first instance, in the case of a public will ... ... The public will as transmitted to the registrar shall be opened during the court’s first hearing [after receipt of the will].” Article 1956 “The court dealing with the inheritance shall issue the heir, at the latter’s request, with a certificate setting out his inheritance rights and the share of the estate bequeathed to him (inheritance certificate – κληρονομητήριο ).” C.     The Code of Civil Procedure 34.     Article 562 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows: “Any ground of appeal on points of law against a judgment delivered by the court to which a case has been remitted shall be inadmissible if it relates to a part of the judgment which is in conformity with the Court of Cassation judgment.” D.     Islamic law of succession 35.     Under the Islamic law of succession ( Farâ’idh ), intestate succession is the most common form of inheritance. Death results in the permanent cessation of legal relations between the deceased and third parties. Such third parties include the deceased’s heirs, who are treated as creditors. Any creditors other than the heirs are accorded a higher rank and must be prioritised, failing which any inheritance in favour of the heirs is null and void. 36.     Male heirs have double the share in the estate as compared with female heirs. They are treated as “autonomous” heirs and are entitled to the portion of the estate remaining after those entitled to fractional shares have received them. The widow and daughters of the deceased are deemed to be entitled to fractional shares in the estate. Six types of fractional shares are possible: one-half, one-quarter, one-eighth, one-third, two-thirds and one-sixth. Thus, the widow will receive one-eighth of the estate, if there are any children, and one-quarter if there are none. If the deceased’s only child is female, she is entitled to half of the estate. If the deceased also has brothers and a mother, his daughter will receive one-sixth. 37.     By judgment no. 152/1991, the Rodopi Court of First Instance ruled that the system of unequal shares in an estate under the intestate mode of succession was contrary to Article 4 § 2 of the Constitution, which guarantees gender equality. 38.     Sharia law also provides for an Islamic will, although this is more akin to a legacy. Such a will is drawn up by the mufti himself or is made orally before two witnesses. It enables the person concerned to bequeath up to one-third of his property to third parties (other than his heirs) for charitable purposes. 39.     A mufti is a Greek civil servant holding the rank of Director-General of Administration who is appointed by presidential decree on a proposal by the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs (regarding the role of the mufti, see also paragraphs 50 and 77 below). E.     Provisions governing the application of Sharia law in Greek law and domestic practice 1.     Legislative instruments 40.     The protection of the religious specificity of Greek Muslims is based on a series of international instruments (see paragraphs 62-65 below), as well as on section 4 of Law no. 147/1914 of 5 January 1914 on legislation applicable in the ceded territories and their judicial organisation (enacted pursuant to the Treaty of Athens, to which section 4(2) of the Law refers), which provides: “All matters relating to the marriage of persons belonging to the Muslim or Jewish religion, that is to say all matters relating to the lawful contracting and dissolution of marriage and personal relations between spouses during their marital life, as well as kinship, shall be governed by religious law and adjudicated in conformity with such law. As regards Muslims, the special conditions applicable to them as provided in the latest treaty between Greece and Turkey are also in force.” 41.     When the Greek Civil Code was adopted in 1946, section 6 of the Introductory Law to the Code repealed section 4 of Law no. 147/1914 in respect of Greek nationals of Jewish faith only. However, section 8 of the Introductory Law to the Code maintained section 10(1) of Law no.   2345/1920, which was later superseded by section 5(2) of Law no.   1920/1991 (see paragraph 45 below). 42.     Section 5(2) of Law no. 1920/1991 ratifying the Legislative Act of   24 December 1990 on Muslim ministers of religion provides: “The mufti’s jurisdiction applies to Greek citizens of Muslim faith resident in his region, in the spheres of marriage, divorce, maintenance payments, guardianship, trusteeship, capacity of minors, Islamic wills and intestate succession, where such matters are governed by Islamic holy law”. 43.     Section 5(3) of the same Law provides as follows: “Decisions given by the mufti in cases where his jurisdiction is contested cannot be enforced and do not constitute res judicata unless they have been declared enforceable by the court of first instance, sitting in single-judge formation, of the region for which the mufti is responsible, under a non-contentious procedure. The court will only consider whether the decision was given within the bounds of the mufti’s jurisdiction and whether the provisions applied were in conformity with the Constitution. The court’s judgment may be challenged before a bench of the same court, which shall adjudicate in accordance with the same procedure. The judgment of the bench shall not be open to ordinary or extraordinary appeal.” 2.     Case-law (a)     International treaties 44.     The highest Greek courts disagree as to whether the Treaty of Athens is still in force and as to its scope. The Supreme Administrative Court has ruled that the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne on protecting minorities are based on the principle of equal treatment of members of minorities and other citizens in the exercise of their civil and political rights. Consequently, in its view, Article 11 of the Treaty of Athens is not compatible with the aforementioned principle and is therefore no longer applicable (judgments nos. 1333/2001 and   466/2003). On the other hand, according to the settled case-law of the civil bench of the Court of Cassation, the Treaty of Athens is the legal basis for the protection of minorities in Greece, and the international obligation to apply Sharia law flows from that treaty (judgments nos.   231/1932, 105/1937, 14/1938, 322/1960, 738/1967, 1723/1980, 1041/2000, 1097/2007 and   2113/2009). 45.     The civil bench of the Court of Cassation has also held that the status granted to Greek Muslims under the Treaties of Sèvres and Lausanne did not lapse as a result of the adoption of the Civil Code in 1946 (see paragraph 41 above). It has noted that only the part of section   4 of Law no.   147/1914 concerning the Jewish community, and not that regarding the Muslim community, was repealed. It has also found that although Law no.   1920/1991 repealed section 10(1) of Law no. 2345/1920 (see paragraph   41 above), it incorporated the contents of that provision into its own section 5(2). The Court of Cassation has emphasised that the aforementioned legislative provisions, which had been introduced pursuant to the Treaties of Sèvres and Lausanne, were intended to protect Greek Muslims, amounted to a special law applicable to interpersonal relations and were not contrary to Article 4 § 1 of the Constitution (principle of equality), Article 20 § 1 of the Constitution (right to judicial protection), or Article 6 §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, judgment no.   2138/2013 of the Court of Cassation of 5 December 2013). 46.     The Civil bench of the Court of Cassation has accepted that Sharia law applies subject to its compatibility with the Constitution and with international law, a question that has to be decided by the domestic courts when assessing the enforceability of decisions given by the mufti. In its aforementioned judgment no. 2138/2013 it held: “... it appears that Muslim family relations are subject to the rules of their religious tradition (in so far as they are compatible with higher-ranking legal rules, such as the provisions of the Constitution and contemporary international law). It also appears that one indispensable element of that tradition is the jurisdiction of their ministers of religion, who alone have competence either to adjudicate on the content of religious rules, or to interpret and apply them to each individual case.” 47.     On the other hand, the criminal bench of the Court of Cassation has held that section 5(2) of Law no. 1920/1991 is a procedural provision which cannot create any substantive legal rule (judgment no.   1588/2011). It has ruled that the question of maintenance payments to a Muslim’s wife and children should be settled by the civil courts and not by the mufti. (b)     Jurisdiction of the mufti 48.     Studying the case-law of the courts of first instance on this subject, legal commentators have noted that those courts do not in fact perform a proper review of constitutionality, but in most cases formally ratify the mufti’s decision. Between 2007 and 2014, for example, the Xanthi and Rodopi courts declared enforceable 390 decisions by the Mufti of Xanthi and   476 decisions by the Mufti of Komotini respectively, and refused to do so in 34 and 17 cases respectively. [1] 49.     In an opinion issued on 3 November 1953 the plenary State Legal Council held that section 4 of Law no. 147/1914 – in so far as it related to the law of succession applicable to Greek Muslims – and a number of other provisions were no longer based on the international treaties in force on the date of adoption of the Civil Code and should therefore be deemed to have lapsed. The State Legal Council held that Article 11 of the Treaty of Athens had been tacitly abrogated by the subsequent Treaties of Sèvres and Lausanne. It added that the repeal of section 4 of Law no. 147/1914 and of certain provisions of other laws (governing matters pertaining to respect for the customs of the Muslim minority) as a result of the adoption of the Civil Code, which was applicable to all Greek nationals and all family-law matters, should not be considered contrary to the Treaty of Lausanne. Lastly, it noted that Turkey’s repeal of the provisions applicable to its own minorities and Greece’s acceptance of that situation supported the conclusion that the entry into force of a single Civil Code compatible with prevailing conceptions in western European civilisation was not in breach of the Treaty of Lausanne. Accordingly, when imposing inheritance tax, the tax authorities should take the view that Greek Muslims inherited in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. 50.     It also appears from the case-law of the Greek lower courts that the jurisdiction of the mufti and the application of Sharia law are limited by the constitutional and international obligations in force in the national legal system, requiring the State, in the event of a conflict between that law and civil rights, to secure the latter to Muslim Greek citizens by applying the Greek Civil Code (judgment no. 9/2008 of the Rodopi Court of First Instance). 51.     By judgment no. 7/2001 the Thrace Court of Appeal ruled that matters of family law and inheritance law falling within the mufti’s jurisdiction were strictly defined and circumscribed because they had given rise to an exceptional body of law an extensive interpretation of which could not be tolerated. 52.     By decision no. 1623/2003 ordering interim measures, the Xanthi Court of First Instance held that where Greek nationals of Muslim faith opted to contract a civil marriage, all matters coming under family law, including those listed in section 5(2), were governed not by Sharia law but by the rules of ordinary law and fell under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. The Xanthi Court of First Instance also ruled that freedom of religion and the principle of equality afford all Greek citizens the right to choose whatever type of marriage they wish and, if they opt for civil marriage, the right to have the corresponding law applied to their situation. 53.     By judgment no. 102/2012, the Xanthi Court of First Instance also ruled that the deprivation of the rights of Greek Muslim women or their unequal treatment could not be found to be justified by special circumstances or necessary on public-interest grounds overriding fundamental rights, gender equality and equality before the law. However, that judgment was overturned by the Thrace Court of Appeal (judgment no. 178/2015). 54.     Moreover, in the instant case (see paragraph 15 above), the Thrace Court of Appeal has ruled that the mufti has no jurisdiction regarding inheritance by public will, and that the deceased’s wishes cannot be restricted by the mufti’s jurisdiction, as that would amount to discrimination on grounds of religion. It has also noted that Sharia law is a special body of law whose interpretation has the effect of depriving Muslims of their rights against their wishes (judgment no. 392/2011). 55.     Since 1960, the established case-law of the civil bench of the Court of Cassation, for its part, has tended to apply Sharia law to intestate succession concerning property held “in full ownership” (judgments nos.   321/1960, 1041/2000, 1097/2007, 2113/2009, 1497/2013 and 1370/2014). By judgment no.   1097/2007 of 16 May 2007, the Court of Cassation held that the estate of Greek Muslims concerning unencumbered property was strictly governed by “Islamic holy law” and not by the Civil Code . Furthermore, on 7   February 2017 it reiterated that Sharia law was the only law applicable to Greek Muslims in the sphere of intestate succession. 3.     National Commission for Human Rights 56.     In a “written contribution” on the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in Greece, submitted in July 2016 to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the National Commission for Human Rights pointed out that the authorities were continuing not to apply Greek civil law relating to marriage and inheritance to the Thrace Muslim minority, and that the application of Sharia law was incompatible with the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It expressed its concern as regards the Court of Cassation’s judgment no. 1862/2013 in the present case (see paragraph 18 above), which it said had set a precedent liable to affect judicial practice in Greece and breached the right of members of the Thrace Muslim minority to make a will in accordance with civil law, a right which they had been able to exercise since 1946 (Annual Report of the National Commission for Human Rights, 2016, p. 239). F.     Law no. 4511/2018 amending section 5 of Law no. 1920/1991 ratifying the Legislative Act of 24 December 1990 on Muslim ministers of religion 57.     The relevant provisions of Law no. 4511/2018, which came into force on 15 January 2018, read as follows: Section 1 “1.     The following subsection 4 shall be added at the end of section 5 of the Legislative Act of 24 December 1990 ...: ‘4. (a) The cases mentioned in subsection 2 above shall be governed by the provisions of ordinary law, and shall only exceptionally come under the jurisdiction of the mufti, that is to say where both parties jointly request that he settle a dispute in accordance with Islamic holy law ... If one of the parties does not wish to submit the case to the mufti, that party may apply to the civil courts ..., which are deemed to have jurisdiction in all cases. (b) A presidential decree issued at the behest of the Minister of Education, Research and Religious Denominations and the Minister of Justice, Transparency and Human Rights, shall establish the procedural rules governing the examination of the case by the mufti and the publication of the latter’s decisions ... (c) Inheritance matters relating to members of the Thrace Muslim minority shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code, unless the testator makes a notarised declaration of his or her last wishes ... explicitly stating his or her wish to make the succession subject to the rules of Islamic holy law.’ 2.     .Any wills drawn up before the entry into force of this Law in respect of which the property has not yet been transferred shall normally take legal effect at the time they are opened. ...” 58.     The explanatory report on Law no. 4511/2018 pointed out that case-law and legal opinion had dealt with various aspects of the application of Sharia law and the issue of the hierarchy of certain provisions and their ranking in the domestic legal order, as well as their conformity with the Constitution and European human rights standards. This issue is still relevant, bearing in mind the developments in legal opinion and case-law on such matters and the interaction between the case-law of the Greek courts and that of the international courts. 59.     The report acknowledged that the State had not acted on this matter for ninety-seven years, during which time conceptions, practices and traditions had evolved at both international and national levels. 60.     The report pointed out that the State should not be a mere onlooker during a legal debate and should no longer leave it to the judiciary to resolve important issues that affected Greek citizens. 61.     By the date of adoption of the present judgment the decree mentioned in section 1(4)(b) of the Law had apparently not yet been issued. III.     INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Treaties 1.     International treaties regulating the protection of the religious distinctiveness of Greek Muslims 62.     The protection of the religious distinctiveness of Greek Muslims is based on three international treaties: the Treaty of Athens of 14 November 1913, which was intended to strengthen peace and friendship between Greece and Turkey, the Treaty of Sèvres of 10 August 1920 concerning the protection of minorities (concluded between, on the one hand, Greece, and on the other, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan), and the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 24 July 1923 (concluded between, on the one hand, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and, on the other, Turkey). 63.     Article 11 of the Treaty of Athens provides: “8.1. The muftis, in addition to their authority over purely religious affairs and their supervision of the administration of vakouf [public] property, shall exercise jurisdiction between Muslims in matters of marriage, divorce, maintenance payments ( néfaca ), guardianship, trusteeship, emancipation of minors, Islamic wills, and succession to the position of Mutevelli ( tevliet ). 8.2. The judgments rendered by the muftis shall be executed by the proper Greek authorities. 9. As to matters of inheritance, the interested Muslim parties may, after agreeing thereto, resort to the mufti as an arbitrator. All methods of appeal practiced before the national courts shall be applicable to the arbitral decision thus rendered unless there is a clause expressly providing to the contrary.” 64.     Article 14 § 1 of the Treaty of Sèvres provided as follows: “Greece agrees to take all necessary measures in relation to Moslems to enable questions of family law and personal status to be regulated in accordance with Moslem usage.” 65.     The Treaty of Lausanne provides, in particular: Article 42 § 1 “The Turkish Government undertakes to take, as regards the non-Moslem minorities, in so far as concerns their family law or personal status, measures permitting the settlement of these questions in accordance with the customs of those minorities.” Article 43 “Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their faith or religious observance, and shall not be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend Courts of Law or to perform any legal business on their weekly day of rest. This provision, however, shall not exempt such Turkish nationals from such obligations as shall be imposed upon all other Turkish nationals for the preservation of public order.” Article 45 “The rights conferred by the provisions of the present Section on the non-Moslem minorities of Turkey will be similarly conferred by Greece on the Moslem minority in her territory.” 2.     Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 66.     Article 30 (application of successive treaties relating to the same subject-matter) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 provides: “1. Subject to Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, the rights and obligations of States parties to successive treaties relating to the same subject-matter shall be determined in accordance with the following paragraphs. 2. When a treaty specifies that it is subject to, or that it is not to be considered as incompatible with, an earlier or later treaty, the provisions of that other treaty prevail. 3. When all the parties to the earlier treaty are parties also to the later treaty but the earlier treaty is not terminated or suspended in operation under article 59, the earlier treaty applies only to the extent that its provisions are compatible with those of the later treaty.” 3.     Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities 67.     Article 3 § 1 of this Convention, which was adopted in 1995 and came into force on 1 February 1998 (and has been signed but not ratified by Greece), provides: “Every person belonging to a national minority shall have the right freely to choose to be treated or not to be treated as such and no disadvantage shall result from this choice or from the exercise of the rights which are connected to that choice.” 68.     The explanatory report on the Framework Convention emphasises that Article   3 §   1 “firstly guarantees to every person belonging to a national minority the freedom to choose to be treated or not to be treated as such. This provision leaves it to every such person to decide whether or not he or she wishes to come under the protection flowing from the principles of the framework Convention” (§ 34). The report specifies that that paragraph “does not imply a right for an individual to choose arbitrarily to belong to any national minority. The individual’s subjective choice is inseparably linked to objective criteria relevant to the person’s identity” (§ 35). It adds that paragraph 1 “further provides that no disadvantage shall arise from the free choice it guarantees, or from the exercise of the rights which are connected to that choice [and that t]his ... provision aims to secure that the enjoyment of the freedom to choose shall also not be impaired indirectly” (§   36). 4.     United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 69.     In its 2018 General comment No. 6 on equality and non-discrimination, adopted on 26 April 2018, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reaffirmed its view that the concept of “discrimination” includes discrimination against: “... those who are associated with a person with a disability. The latter is known as “discrimination by association”. The reason for the wide scope of article 5 is to eradicate and combat all discriminatory situations and/or discriminatory conducts that are linked to disability. (§ 20)” B.     Findings of international bodies 1.     United Nations (a)     UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women 70.     In its concluding comments of 2 February 2007 on Greece the Committee voiced its concern about the non-application of Greek legislation on marriage and inheritance to the Muslim minority, fearing that that situation amounted to discrimination against Muslim women in breach of the Greek Constitution and Artic