CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 octobre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     666   3.10.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CAMP AND BOURIMI v. THE NETHERLANDS   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment in the case of Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands. The Court unanimously found that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article   8 (right to respect for family life), in respect of Sofian Bourimi, the second applicant.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants   598,499 Netherlands guilders (NLG) and 50 cents for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and legal costs and expenses.     1.     Principal facts   The case concerns an application brought by two Dutch nationals, Eveline Camp and Sofian Bourimi, who were born in 1966 and 1992 respectively and live in Weert, the Netherlands.   Eveline Camp was pregnant with Sofian and living in the Netherlands with Sofian’s father, Mr Abbie Bourimi, a Moroccan national, when the latter died on 24 September 1992. Although this had been their intention, Ms Camp and Mr Abbie Bourimi had not yet married; neither had Mr Abbie Bourimi officially recognised the unborn child Ms Camp was carrying. Mr Abbie Bourimi left no will and according to the legal provisions in force his parents and siblings inherited his estate and they subsequently moved into the house which had been owned by Mr Abbie Bourimi. Ms   Camp complained through the Dutch Courts and on 4   June   1996 the Court of Appeal struck out the case after an agreement was reached under which Ms   Camp would leave the house with Sofian. The applicants complained about the fact that the ties between Sofian and his father and the latter’s relatives were not legally recognised until Sofian had been declared officially legitimate two years after his birth. This declaration lacked retroactive effect to the time of Mr Abbie Bourimi’s death, as a result of which Sofian was not recognised as the heir to his father’s estate, which included the home where he and his mother had been living.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18   August   1995. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 23 April 1999 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone, either in respect of the family life between the two applicants or in respect of Ms Camp’s family life with the relatives of Sofian’s father, that it was not necessary to examine under Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone, Sofian’s complaints relating to family life with the relatives of his father, and that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 8, in respect of Sofian. It referred the case to the Court on 15 September 1999. The applicants also brought the case before the Court on 12   August 1999. A hearing was held on 6 June 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Tudor Panţîru (Moldovan), judges , András Baka (Hungarian), substitute judge ,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained that their rights guaranteed under Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Court considered that the initial absence of legally-recognised family relationships between Sofian and his father did not constitute an interference by the public authorities with the family life between Ms Camp and Sofian, nor between Ms Camp and the relatives of Sofian’s father. It did not find that obstacles to the development of those ties were imputable to an action or lack of action on the part of the Netherlands authorities. The Court further observed that the complaint in respect of the family life between Sofian and his father’s relatives fell more appropriately to be examined under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8.   Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8   The Court observed that Sofian, who did not obtain legally-recognised family ties with his father until he had been declared legitimate two years after his birth, was unable to inherit from his father unlike children who did have such ties either because they were born in wedlock or had been recognised by their father. This undoubtedly constituted a difference in treatment between persons in similar situations, based on birth. According to the Court’s case-law, very weighty reasons need to be put forward before a difference in treatment on the ground of birth out of wedlock can be regarded as compatible with the Convention. The Court observed in this respect that there was no conscious decision on the part of Mr Abbie Bourimi not to recognise the child Ms   Camp was carrying. On the contrary, he had intended to marry Ms   Camp and Sofian had been declared legitimate precisely because his untimely death had precluded that marriage. The Court could not accept the Government’s arguments as to how Mr   Abbie Bourimi might have prevented his son’s present predicament and considered Sofian’s exclusion from his father’s inheritance disproportionate.     Article 41   The Court awarded the applicants   NLG 560,844.75 for pecuniary damage, to be held by Ms   Camp for Sofian; NLG 6,750 for non-pecuniary damage and NLG 30,904.75 for costs and expenses together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable, less the amounts received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe.   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 Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Judge elected in respect of San Marino. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.