CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 juillet 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   557 09.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ZEÏBEK v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Zeïbek v. Greece (application no. 46368/06). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, on account of a refusal to grant the applicant a pension payable for life as the mother of a large family.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 13,455   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Bedrie Zeïbek, is a Greek national who was born in 1951 and lives in Xanthi (Greece).   Between 1974 and 1982 she had four children with her husband, who like her was a Greek citizen and a Muslim. When the fourth child was born she became the mother of a “large family” under Greek law.   While the Zeïbek family were visiting the applicant’s father in Turkey, they all had their Greek nationality withdrawn by a decision of the Minister of the Interior dated 22   November 1984. That decision was based on Article   19 of the Nationality Code as then in force, authorising such a measure against “any person of foreign origin who leaves Greece without intending to resettle there”. The family’s appeals against that decision were dismissed.   In 1998 Article 19 of the Nationality Code was repealed. The authorities then invited members of the Muslim community who had been deprived of their Greek nationality to apply for naturalisation, which the applicant and her family did on 4 November 1999. On 23   March 2001 Greek nationality was restored to the applicant and to her children except for one daughter, Ilkaï. Being both a minor and married, Ilkaï was considered to be dependent on her husband and was not therefore entitled to acquire Greek nationality through her mother.   On 19 December 2001 the applicant applied for a pension, payable for life, as the mother of a large family, in accordance with law no. 1982/1990. However, her application was rejected on 22 November 2002 on the ground that, as her four children did not all have Greek nationality, the statutory requirements were not met. The applicant’s appeals against this refusal were dismissed. On 22 May 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court found, among other things, that Article 21 of the Constitution – which protects the family and motherhood – was relevant only to the need to preserve and promote the Greek nation and did not concern foreign families living in Greece.   The decision depriving Ilkaï of her Greek nationality was set aside on 25 January 2007.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 November 2006. It was decided that the admissibility and merits would be examined at the same time.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Christos Rozakis (Greece), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, Mrs Zeïbek complained of the fact that she had been deprived of the large-family pension payable for life.   Decision of the Court   The applicant, at the time of Ilkaï’s birth, had acquired the status of mother of a large family. According to Greek law and practice, that status was in principle to be retained for life, even when one or more of the children ceased to be attached to the family and regardless of the children’s nationality (provided the mother lived permanently and legally in Greece). This was already guaranteed by Greek law at the time the applicant’s pension application was rejected in 2002. The pension itself had been introduced by a law of 1990.   The applicant and certain members of her family had not therefore been reinstated as Greek nationals with all the ensuing rights that were, by contrast, conferred on all large families of Greek origin. The reinstatement should have involved recognising the applicant as the mother of a large family with all the benefits arising from that status, as if the withdrawal of nationality had never taken place.   In this context, and having regard to the importance given to the protection of large families both by the Constitution and by the legislature, the Court found it surprising that the Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment, had associated the granting of such protection with the “need to preserve and promote the Greek nation” – a criterion based not on Greek nationality but on national origin.   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, as the applicant had been subjected to a difference in treatment that was not based on any “objective or reasonable justification”, and had had to bear an excessive and disproportionate burden that upset the fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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.