CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 janvier 2009

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   38 20.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ŞERİFE YİĞİT v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey (application no. 3976/05). ( The judgment is available only in French. )   The Court held by 4 votes to 3 that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to the Turkish courts’ refusal to transfer to the applicant her deceased partner’s social security benefits, despite the fact that they had been married in a religious ceremony.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Şerife Yiğit, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey).   In 1976 she married Ömer Koç (Ö.K.) in a religious ceremony ( imam nikah ). Ö.K. died on 10   September 2002. The youngest of their six children, Emine, was born in 1990.   On 11 September 2003 the applicant brought an action, in her own name and that of Emine, seeking to have her marriage with Ö.K. recognised and to have Emine entered in the civil register as his daughter. The District Court allowed the second request but rejected the request concerning the marriage.   The applicant further applied to the retirement pension fund ( Bağ-Kur ) to have Ö.K.’s retirement pension and health insurance benefits transferred to her and her daughter. The benefits were granted to Emine but not to her mother, on the ground that her marriage to Ö.K. had not been legally recognised. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against that decision.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 December 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugual), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant relied on Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for family life), complaining of the courts’ refusal to transfer her deceased partner’s social security benefits to her.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Court noted that the applicant, her partner and their children constituted a family, as Şerife Yiğit had married Ö.K. in a religious ceremony, had lived with him until his death and had had six children with him, the first five of whom had been entered in the civil register as his children.   The Court observed that the decisive element was whether or not a commitment had been entered into involving contractual rights and obligations. While the Court noted the current trend in some countries towards accepting and even recognising stable forms of cohabitation other than marriage, it observed that under Turkish law a religious marriage ceremony performed by an imam did not give rise to any commitments towards third parties or the State.   The Court considered it not unreasonable for protection to be afforded only to civil marriages in Turkey, reiterating that marriage remained an institution widely recognised as conferring a particular status on those who entered into it.   In the applicant’s case the Court considered that the difference in treatment between married and unmarried couples with regard to survivors’ benefits was aimed at protecting the traditional family based on the bonds of marriage and was therefore legitimate and justified. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8.     Judges Tulkens, Zagrebelsky and Sajó expressed a joint dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.