CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 avril 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution ResDH(2005)25 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 1 February 2000 (final on 1 May 2000) in the case of Mazurek against France   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 April 2005 at the 922nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Mazurek case delivered on 1   February 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 34406/97) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13 December 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr   Claude   Mazurek, a French national, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint that as an adulterine child, his inheritance rights over his mother's estate had been limited as compared to those of his legitimate half-brother;   Whereas in its judgment of 1 February 2000 the Court:   -   held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention;   -   held, by five votes to two, that it was not necessary to examine the complaint based on Article 8 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14;   -   held, unanimously, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 20 000   French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage; 376 034.61 French francs in respect of pecuniary damage; 100 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 3.47% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   -   dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 1 February 2000, having regard to France's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;   Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;   Having satisfied itself that on 15 June 2000, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 1 February 2000,   Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.     Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2005)25   Information provided by the Government of France during the examination of the Mazurek case By the Committee of Ministers   The Government notes at the outset that the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court of Human Rights has provided redress for all consequences of the violation for the applicant.   The domestic courts promptly gave direct effect to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court's judgment in this case (see for example the decision of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Montpellier on 2 May 2000 commented on in Dalloz 2001 No.   16 and Jurisclasseur September 2000), by setting aside the application of Article 760 of the Civil Code, which established the difference in treatment between legitimate and adulterine children.   Law No. 2001-1135 of 3 December 2001 (published in the Journal Officiel of 4 December 2001) on the reform of succession rights of the surviving spouse and adulterine child, subsequently codified this development and removed existing discrimination between adulterine children and other children. From now on, pursuant to its first article (which constitutes a new Article 733 of the Civil Code), the law does not distinguish between legitimate and natural filiation in relation to questions of inheritance.   Moreover, the judgment has been published and widely commented on in the general and specialised press (see in particular in Gazette du Palais of 19-21 November 2000, Dalloz 2000 No. 10 and Dalloz 2000 No. 41).   The Government considers that these developments have effectively prevented new violations similar to that found and considers thus that France has complied with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.