CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 octobre 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. 134 October 2010 Fawsie v. Greece - 40080/07 Judgment 28.10.2010 [Section I] Article 14 Discrimination Refusal to grant welfare benefits to foreign nationals: violation   [This summary also covers the judgment in the case of Saidoun v. Greece, no. 40083/07, 28 October 2010] Facts – Mrs Fawsie is a Syrian national and Mrs   Saidoun a Lebanese national. They have both been officially recognised as political refugees, together with their children, since 1998 and 1995, and are legal residents in Greece. In 2005 the family allowance office rejected the applicants’ requests for the allowance paid to mothers of large families. The rejection decision explained that the applicants did not have the status of “mother of a large family” within the meaning of the legislation, as neither they nor their children had Greek nationality or the nationality of one of the member States of the European Union or were refugees of Greek origin. The applicants’ appeals against that decision were unsuccessful. In 2008 the legislature amended the law in question and it now provides that people officially recognised as refugees, together with their families, are included among the beneficiaries of the “large family” allowance. Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article   8 (a)     Applicability – The granting of an allowance for large families enabled the State to show its respect for family life within the meaning of Article   8 and thus fell within its ambit. Accordingly, Article   14 taken together with that provision, was applicable in the present case. (b)     Merits – The Court did not call into question the desire of the Greek legislature to address the country’s demographic problem. However, it did not agree with the criterion chosen, being based mainly on Greek nationality or origin, especially as it was not uniformly applied at the relevant time in the prevailing legislation and case-law. Only very strong considerations could lead the Court to consider a difference in treatment exclusively based on nationality to be compatible with the Convention. It noted moreover that the Supreme Administrative Court had, in 2000, found in favour of a person in a similar situation to that of the applicants. In addition, from 1997 onwards, the status of beneficiary of the allowance had been granted to nationals of European Union Member States, then from 2000 to nationals of States Parties to the European Economic Area, and finally, from 2008, to refugees such as the applicants. Lastly, under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, to which Greece was a party, States had to grant to refugees staying lawfully in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as was accorded to their own nationals. Therefore, the refusal of the authorities to award a large family allowance to the applicants had not been reasonably justified. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: In the Fawsie case EUR   13,190.52 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; in the Saidoun case EUR   6,938.88 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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