CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 octobre 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4CF449FA { width:160.52pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   568 25.10.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Germany   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final [1] . (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 Niedzwiecki v. Germany (application no 58453/00) Okpisz v. Germany (no. 59140/00) The applicants, Jaroslaw Niedzwiecki and Zbigniew and Halina Okpisz are Polish nationals aged 44, 59 and 48 respectively. Mr Niedzwiecki lives in Swidnica (Poland) and the other two in Dortmund (Germany).   The applicants all complained that they were refused child benefit because, under Section 1 § 3 of the Federal Child Benefits Act – as amended and in force as from 1 January 1994 – foreigners were only entitled to child benefits if in possession of an unlimited residence permit ( Aufenthaltsberechtigung ) or a provisional residence permit ( Aufenthaltserlaubnis ).   Niedzwiecki Mr Niedzwiecki immigrated to Germany in February 1987. In January 1991 he was issued with a limited residence permit for exceptional purposes ( Aufenthaltsbefugnis ), which was renewed every two years. In July 1995 his daughter was born.   In July 1995 Mr Niedzwiecki applied to Aschaffenburg Labour Office for child benefit. His request was dismissed because he did not have the required residence permit under Section 1 § 3. He appealed unsuccessfully.   In April 1997, he obtained an unlimited residence permit.   Okpisz In 1985, Zbigniew and Halina Okpisz, a married couple, immigrated to Germany with their daughter. Their son joined them the following year. In 1987 their request to be recognised as immigrants of German origin ( Vertriebene ) was rejected. They were issued with residence titles for exceptional purposes which have been regularly renewed.   In December 1993 Mr Okpisz, who had received child benefit since 1986, was informed that, following a change in legislation (Section 1 § 3), he would no longer be paid child benefit as from 1 January 1994. He unsuccessfully filed an application with the social court. The appeal proceedings were suspended in 1997 pending the German Federal Constitutional Court’s decision in a number of pilot cases.   On 6 July 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court, dealing with the pilot cases, ruled that Section 1 § 3 of the Child Benefits Act, as effective from January 1994 until December 1995, was incompatible with the right to equal treatment under Article 3 § 1 of German Basic Law. Accordingly, the legislator was ordered to amend the Child Benefits Act by 1 January 2006. The court found, in particular, that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residence permit lacked sufficient justification. As the granting of child benefit related to the protection of family life under Article 6 § 1 of the Basic Law, very weighty reasons would have been required to justify unequal treatment. Such reasons had not been given. The fact that a person was in possession of a limited residence permit did not provide a sufficient basis to predict the duration of his or her stay in Germany. The Constitutional Court did not identify any other reasons justifying the inequality in treatment.   In December 2004, following a request from Mr Okpisz, his proceedings were resumed. They were again suspended in March 2005 pending the amendment of the Child Benefits Act.   The applicants all complained that the German authorities’ refusal to pay them child benefit amounted to discrimination. They relied on Article 14 (prohibition on discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   In both cases, the European Court of Human Rights noted that, according to its case-law, a difference of treatment was discriminatory for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention if it had “no objective and reasonable justification”, that was, if it did not pursue a “legitimate aim” or if there was not a “reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised”. However States which had ratified the Convention also enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justified a difference in treatment.   The Court was not called upon to decide generally to what extent it was justified in making distinctions, in the field of social benefits, between holders of different categories of residence permits; it had to limit itself to the question of whether German law on child benefit as applied in the applicants’ cases violated their rights under the Convention. Like the Federal Constitutional Court, the Court did not discern sufficient reasons justifying the different treatment with regard to child benefit of foreigners who were in possession of a stable residence permit on one hand and those who were not, on the other. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 in both cases.   The Court also held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Niedzwiecki and awarded him 1,400   euros   (EUR) for pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. It awarded Zbigniew and Halina Okpisz EUR   2,500 for pecuniary damage.   *** These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.