CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 novembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 135 November 2010 Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey [GC] - 3976/05 Judgment 2.11.2010 [GC] Article 14 Discrimination Refusal to recognise applicant as heir of man she had married in purely religious ceremony: no violation   Facts – The applicant contracted a religious marriage in 1976 and her husband died in 2002. In 2003 she brought an action, in her own name and that of her daughter, seeking to have her marriage recognised and to have her daughter entered in the civil register as her husband’s child. The District Court allowed the second request but rejected the request concerning the marriage. The applicant also applied to the retirement pension fund to have her late husband’s retirement pension and health-insurance benefits transferred to her and her daughter. The benefits were granted to the daughter but not to her mother, on the ground that the marriage had not been legally recognised. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against that decision. In a judgment of 20 January 2009 a Chamber of the Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article   8 (see Information Note no.   115). Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (a)     Applicability – According to the domestic legislation and case-law, only persons married in accordance with the Civil Code could inherit their late spouse’s social-security entitlements. However, although Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 did not include the right to receive a social-security payment of any kind, if a State did decide to create a benefits scheme it had to do so in a manner which was compatible with Article   14. The applicant complained that she had not been awarded social-security benefits based on her late partner’s entitlement on discriminatory grounds, namely her status as a woman married in accordance with religious rites. Accordingly, Article   14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 was applicable in the instant case. (b)     Merits (i)     Whether the civil or religious nature of a marriage could be a source of discrimination prohibited by Article   14 : Although not lawfully married, the applicant had lived in a monogamous relationship with her partner for twenty-six years until his death, and had six children with him. The Labour Court had rejected the applicant’s claim for a survivor’s pension and social-security benefits based on her late partner’s entitlement because she had not contracted a civil marriage. The present case concerned one of the aspects of personal “status” which could be a source of discrimination prohibited by Article   14, as it was not disputed that the difference in treatment to which the applicant had been subjected with regard to the benefits in question had been based solely on the non-civil nature of her marriage to her partner. (ii)     Whether there had been an objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment : The institution of monogamous civil marriage as a prerequisite for any religious marriage was aimed at protecting women. Hence, the difference in treatment in question had primarily pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public order and protecting the rights and freedoms of others. The applicant could not argue that she had a legitimate expectation of obtaining social-security benefits on the basis of her partner’s entitlement. The rules laying down the substantive and formal conditions governing civil marriage were clear and accessible and the arrangements for contracting a civil marriage were straightforward and did not place an excessive burden on the persons concerned. Moreover, the applicant had had a sufficiently long time – twenty-six years – in which to contract a civil marriage. There was therefore no justification for her assertion that the efforts she had allegedly undertaken to regularise her situation had been hampered by the cumbersome nature or slowness of the administrative procedures. As to whether the civil-status registrar could or should have regularised her situation of his or her own accord on the basis of the amnesty laws enacted in relation to children born outside marriage, while it was true that the State could regulate civil marriage, this did not mean that it could require persons within its jurisdiction to contract a civil marriage. Furthermore, the amnesty laws in question were simply aimed at improving the situation of children. Accordingly, there had been a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the impugned difference in treatment and the legitimate aim pursued. There had therefore been an objective and reasonable justification for the difference in question. Conclusion: no violation (unanimously). Article 8: The Grand Chamber fully agreed with the Chamber’s conclusion that Article   8 was applicable. The fact that the applicant and her partner had opted for the religious form of marriage and had not contracted a civil marriage had not entailed any administrative or criminal penalties such as to prevent the applicant from leading an effective family life. There had therefore been no interference by the State with her family life. Accordingly, Article   8 could not be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the State to recognise religious marriage; nor did it require the State to establish a special regime for a particular category of unmarried couples. Hence, the fact that the applicant did not have the status of heir, in accordance with the law, did not imply that there had been a breach of her rights under Article   8. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). (See, conversely, Muñoz Díaz v.   Spain , no.   49151/07, 8   December 2009, Information Note no.   125)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes