CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 1 février 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     81   1.2.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MAZUREK v. FRANCE     In a judgment notified in writing [1] on 1 February 2000 in the case of Mazurek v. France, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held, by five votes to two, that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken together with Article 14 of the Convention. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 376,034.61 French francs (FRF) for pecuniary damage, FRF 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 100,000 for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The applicant, Claude Mazurek, was born in 1942 and lives at La Grande-Motte (France). After the death of his mother in 1990, Mr Mazurek, the child of an adulterous union, was entitled to a portion of her estate, the size of that portion being a matter in dispute between himself and a legitimated child. At the latter’s request, the civil courts ordered the estate to be divided in such a way that the applicant’s portion would be one quarter instead of the half to which he would have been entitled if he had not been adulterine.   Under Article 760 of the French Civil Code, the child of an adulterous union entitled to a portion of his deceased parent’s estate whose claim competes with the claims of any legitimate children of that parent is entitled to only half of the portion he would have received if he himself had been a legitimate child.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13   December 1996. On 1 November 1998 the case was transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights. It was declared admissible on 4 May 1999 and a public hearing was held on 12 October 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Judges ,   and also Sally Dollé Section Registrar .     3.   Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Mr Mazurek complained of an infringement of his right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention and of discrimination on account of his birth, within the meaning of Article 14. He further complained of an infringement of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14   The Court noted in the first place that the Government had not contested the fact that, under the relevant Articles of the Civil Code, the two half-brothers were not in the same situation vis-à-vis their mother’s estate.   It noted that it was because the applicant was the child of an adulterous union that the portion of the estate to which he would have been entitled if his mother had been unmarried when he was born or if he had been legitimate had been reduced by half, to his half-brother’s advantage, and that that difference in treatment was expressly provided for in Article 760 of the Civil Code.   The Court observed in that connection that with regard to enjoyment of the rights and freedoms secured by the Convention Article 14 prohibited different treatment of persons in comparable situations except where there was an objective and reasonable justification.   The Court therefore had to determine whether the alleged difference in treatment was justified.   It considered that it could not be excluded that the aim pleaded by the Government, namely protection of the traditional family, might be deemed legitimate.   The question remained whether, as regards the means employed, the establishment of a difference in treatment between adulterine children and other children, legitimate or illegitimate, in relation to their parent’s estate appeared proportionate and appropriate to the aim pursued.   The Court noted at the outset that the institution of the family was not rigidly codified, whether historically, sociologically or legally. With regard to the situation in the other member States of the Council of Europe, the Court noted, contrary to the Government’s assertions, a clear trend towards the abolition of discrimination in relation to adulterine children. It could not disregard such developments in its interpretation – which was necessarily evolutive - of the relevant provisions of the Convention.   As regards the Government’s argument concerning moral interests, the Court could only note the broad picture provided by socio-demographic data at the material time and, in particular, a bill proposed in 1991 to put an end to all discrimination.   The only issue submitted to the Court concerned the way a mother’s estate had been divided between her two children, one legitimate, the other adulterine. The Court found in the present case that there was no good reason for discrimination based on adulterine birth. In any event, the adulterine child could not be reproached with events which were not his fault. Yet because the applicant was the child of an adulterous union he had been penalised as regards the division of the estate.   The Court concluded that there was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken together with Article 14 of the Convention.   Articles 8 and 14   In the light of its conclusion in respect of the first complaint, and having regard to the fact that the arguments put forward by the parties were the same as those considered in connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken together with Article 14, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine this complaint.   Article 41 of the Convention   The applicant claimed for pecuniary damage the difference between the sum he had received and the portion which would have been his if the estate had been divided in half. The Government did not object. That being the case, the Court awarded the applicant FRF   376,034.61 for pecuniary damage.   The applicant further claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the sum of FRF   100,000. The Government opposed this claim. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awarded the applicant FRF 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   The Court considered that the costs incurred, both before the French courts and before the Convention institutions, had been intended to secure redress for the alleged violation of the Convention. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awarded the overall sum of FRF 100,000 under this head.   Judges Loucaides and Tulkens expressed partly dissenting opinions and these are annexed to the judgment.   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] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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.