CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 23 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2ED52ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:13pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s1ED9948 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt }   793 23.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Decision Association nationale des pupilles de la nation v. France (application no. 22718/08 )   INADMISSIBILITY OF AN APPLICATION CONCERNING COMPENSATIONFOR WAR ORPHANS     Principal facts   The applicant, the Association nationale des pupilles de la nation , is a French association that was created in 2001 and whose registered office is in Eulmont. Its members are orphans who were minors when their parents died in the war.   On 27 July 2004 France passed a decree providing for financial assistance to orphans of persons who had died while being deported or been executed for acts of resistance (called “victims of acts of barbarity”).   The applicant association brought an action in the Conseil d’Etat for judicial review of the decree. It argued that the compensatory measure, which it deemed to be discriminatory, should have been extended to orphans suffering in similar circumstances, particularly those whose parents had been killed in combat or had been “prisoners of war who had died in detention”.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicant association complained that only the orphans of parents falling into the category of “victims of acts of barbarity” were eligible for compensation and not other orphans suffering in similar circumstances.   The application was lodged on 24 April 2008.   The decision was given by a Chamber composed of seven judges:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges ,   and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,   Decision of the Court   The dispute concerned the provision of financial assistance only to orphans whose parents had been the victims of “acts of barbarity” within the meaning of the decree of 27   July 2004.   In so far as they were not eligible for financial assistance under the conditions laid down by the decree, neither the association nor its members had an existing possession and none of them could have a legitimate expectation of realising a claim against the State. The Court therefore considered that the subject of the application did not fall within the scope of application of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   Accordingly, Article   14 could not apply. That Article complemented the other provisions of the Convention and thus had no independent existence and could not apply unless the subject of the dispute fell within the scope of application of another Article of the Convention or its Protocols.   The Court therefore concluded, unanimously, that the application was inadmissible.     ****   The decision is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The decision is accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.