CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 septembre 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. 133 August-September 2010 Manenc v. France (dec.) - 66686/09 Decision 21.9.2010 [Section V] Article 14 Discrimination Refusal of reversionary pension to survivor of civil partnership between two people of the same sex: inadmissible   Facts – The applicant cohabited for twenty-six years with M.D., a fellow hospital administrator. He stated that the couple had entered into a civil partnership agreement in 2004. Following M.D.’s death in 2009, the applicant applied to two retirement funds for a survivor’s pension. His applications were rejected on the ground that the requirement of a lawful marriage, sanctioned by a marriage certificate, had not been met. In his application to the Court the applicant alleged that this requirement was discriminatory, in particular towards persons who had entered into a civil partnership agreement, and more especially same-sex couples. Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article   8: While Article   8 did not address the issue of survivors’ pensions for the surviving spouse of a deceased insured, French legislation expressly provided for such a right. Accordingly, the circumstances of the case came within the ambit of Article   8 of the Convention, and Article   14 was applicable. As to whether the applicant was in a situation identical to or comparable with that of a surviving spouse, the Court observed that, while the conclusion of a civil partnership agreement under French law entailed a degree of solemnity, in that it went beyond a mere community of interest and conferred rights and obligations in relation to taxation, property and social issues, it nevertheless differed from marriage in terms of the conditions for entering into it, its scope – particularly with regard to inheritance – and its termination, which simply required a unilateral declaration by one of the partners. In particular, unlike marriage, it did not entail any joint financial responsibilities, notably in the event of death. Hence, the applicant had not been in a situation identical to or comparable with that of a surviving spouse following M.D.’s death. In that connection, the Court observed that the fact that the legal framework in force in France did not permit marriage between same-sex couples was not in itself sufficient to place the applicant in such a situation with regard to the pension rights he was claiming. Furthermore, there was nothing to indicate that the difference in situation had been determined by the applicant’s sexual orientation, given that any person in the same situation would have received the same treatment, regardless of the sex of his or her partner. The survivor’s pension had been refused to the applicant solely on the ground that he had been in a civil partnership. Consequently, the French legislation on survivors’ benefits pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the family based on the bonds of marriage; the limiting of the scope of the legislation to married couples, to the exclusion of partners in a civil partnership regardless of their sexual orientation, fell within the broad margin of appreciation accorded to the States by the Convention in this sphere. Hence, the domestic legislation was not manifestly without reasonable foundation. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © 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