CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 7 mai 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } 371 07.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar Admissibility decision     El Orabi v. France (application no. 20672/05)   Unanimously: inadmissible     COURT REJECTS COMPLAINT BY algerian widow THAT SHE WAS DENIED A SURVIVOR’s PENSION, HER Husband having served in french army     Principal facts   The applicant is an Algerian national who was born in 1944 and lives in El Affroun. After the death of her husband, who had served in the French army in Indochina and Algeria, she applied on 5 March 1998 for a survivor’s pension.   Her request was rejected by the Defence Minister for two main reasons, based on the Civil and Military Pensions Code. The first reason concerned the suspension of the applicant’s pension entitlement from 1 January 1963, when she lost her French nationality following Algerian independence. The second reason concerned the non-fulfilment of the requirement that her marriage had to have pre-dated her husband’s discharge from the army.   On 19 April 2001, the Poitiers administrative court, ruling on a complaint by the applicant that concerned only the nationality requirement, which she submitted was discriminatory, dismissed her request for the annulment of the Minister’s decision.   On 6 May 2003 the Bordeaux administrative court of appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant finding that it had not been supported by any valid legal ground.   The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Conseil d’Etat , but it was declared inadmissible on 17 December 2004.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant alleged that the refusal to grant her a survivor’s pension constituted discriminatory treatment.   The application was lodged on 5 June 2005. The decision on admissibility was given on 20   April 2010 by a Chamber composed of seven judges:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and also Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court observed that in the domestic proceedings the applicant had challenged only one of the two reasons given by the Defence Minister for the refusal to grant her a pension, namely the criterion of nationality, which she had described as discriminatory in her complaint before the Court. As to the second reason for the refusal, it was not until she filed her observations with the Court, in reply to those of the Government, that the applicant had, for the first time, submitted arguments as to the requirement that her marriage had to pre-date her husband’s discharge.   The applicant had thus only partially exhausted the domestic remedies available to her and had not given the domestic courts an opportunity to examine her situation with regard to the date of her marriage.   The Court was not therefore able to establish that, even setting aside the nationality condition complained of, the applicant had effectively been entitled to a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Articles relied on in support of her application could not therefore be applied. The Court, unanimously, accordingly rejected her application as ill-founded.   ****   The decision is available only in French. It is accessible on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court.   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) 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) 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.