CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 juillet 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. 146 November 2011 Fabris v. France (referral) - 16574/08 Judgment 21.7.2011 [Section V] Article 14 Discrimination Difference in treatment of legitimate and illegitimate children for succession purposes: case referred to the Grand Chamber The applicant was born in 1943 of a relationship between his father and a married woman who already had two children born of her marriage. In 1970 Mr   and Mrs   M. – the applicant’s mother and her husband – made an inter vivos division of their property ( donation-partage ) between their two legitimate children, retaining a life interest in the property until their death. Mr   M. died in 1981 and Mrs   M. in 1994. In 1983 the tribunal de grande instance had declared the applicant to be the illegitimate child of Mrs   M. In 1998 the applicant brought an action against the legitimate children in the tribunal de grande instance , seeking an abatement of the division so that he could claim his share in his mother’s estate. At that time, the Law of 3   January 1972 provided that children born of adultery could claim only half the share in the estate of their father or mother to which a legitimate child was entitled. After the Court had ruled against France in 2000 in the case of Mazurek v.   France , France amended its legislation by a Law of 3   December 2001 to grant children born of adultery identical inheritance rights to legitimate children. In a judgment of September 2004, the tribunal de grande instance declared the applicant’s action admissible and found in his favour on the merits. Following an appeal by the legitimate children, the court of appeal set the lower court’s judgment aside. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Cassation. In a judgment of 21 July 2011 a Chamber of the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article   14 taken in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 on the ground that the national courts, in applying the transitional provisions of the Laws of 1972 and 2001, had correctly balanced the long-standing established rights of Mr   and Mrs   M.’s legitimate children against the pecuniary interests of the applicant. Thus, according to the court of appeal and the Court of Cassation, at the time when the applicant had brought his action for abatement of the distribution of the estate, in 1998, there had been a pre-existing established legal situation since 1970. In excluding challenges to inter vivos gifts granted prior to the coming into force of the Law of 1972, the legislature had sought to guarantee the legal certainty required by such gifts under the provisions of section   14 of the Law of 3   January 1972 which prohibited challenges to inter vivos gifts granted prior to that Law, which had not been repealed by the Law of 3   December 2001. On 28 November 2011 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   © 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