CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 December 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 22895/23 Atanas Ivanov KUZMANOV against Bulgaria lodged on 26 May 2023 communicated on 25 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a complaint that the applicant was a victim of discrimination on the ground of his sex. In particular, he claims that this was the result of both the relevant legal provision, namely section 6(1) of the Family Allowances for Children Act 2002 (the FACA), and of the authorities refusal in practice – in application of that provision – to grant the applicant a one-off benefit paid to mothers who had given birth to children who were alive at birth. He relies on Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant is the father of twins born in September 2022. The Pazardzhik District Court awarded him sole custody of the children in a final decision of 14 November 2022 at the end of the divorce proceedings between him and the children’s mother who was given contact rights with the children comprising an overnight visit twice a month plus 20 days in the summer. On 12 December 2022 the applicant requested from the Regional Social Assistance Agency (the Agency) to pay him a benefit provided under section   6(1) of the FACA. The provision entitles mothers to receive a one-off financial assistance for the birth of a child born alive, the amount being determined on the basis of the number of children born alive by the same woman. On 20 December 2022 the Agency refused the applicant’s claim on the ground that only the mother was eligible for that benefit. It was in addition impossible to determine its amount without knowing how many children were born by the same mother. The applicant brought judicial review proceedings, relying on section 6(5) of the FACA. According to that provision, if the mother could not collect the benefit in question, it was paid to another legal representative of the child. The applicant specified that the mother was a foreigner and he had custody of the children. With a final decision of 1 March 2023 the Pazardzhik Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s challenge. The court found that the benefit in question was not a family benefit for supporting the children, but an assistance specifically introduced to stimulate women to give birth. Accordingly, the father was not entitled to it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant, in the exercise of his right to private and family life as protected under the Convention, a victim of discrimination, in violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8, as well as with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   2.     In particular, was he subjected to a difference in treatment (less favourable) as compared to women who had given birth, as a result of the authorities’ refusal, on the basis of the law, to grant him a benefit because he was the father and not the mother? In the affirmative, did this difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in a democratic society (compare, mutatis mutandis , Weller v. Hungary , no. 44399/05, §§   34-35, 31   March 2009)?