CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 octobre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 112 October 2008 Alboize-Barthes et Alboize-Montzume v. France - 44421/04 Decision 21.10.2008 [Section V] Article 14 Discrimination Difference in treatment between illegitimate children in succession case depending on how their relationship to their parents was established: inadmissible   The applicants were born out of wedlock. In 1955 their father died without recognising them as his offspring. A few months later his estate was divided up under the terms of a notarial deed and the beneficiaries took possession of their shares. In 1996 the applicants obtained an order from a tribunal de grande instance recognising their filiation. They then sued their father’s heirs to recover their share of the estate. However, their claims were dismissed on the grounds that illegitimate children whose filiation had been established by public acceptance of their status could not claim an interest in an estate that had already been wound up. Inadmissible : The Court agreed with the parties that it was the legislation itself that had created the difference in treatment between the rules governing the devolution of property to illegitimate children who had been voluntarily recognised and illegitimate children whose filiation had been established by public acceptance, with the latter not benefiting from the thirty-year period allowed by the Civil Code for accepting or abandoning a share in an estate. Although the applicants’ complaint was a general complaint of discrimination that came within the scope of the new Protocol No. 12, France had not ratified that instrument. For Article 14 of the Convention to apply the applicants’ interests had to come within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The 1982 Act enabled illegitimate children to establish their filiation through the public acceptance of their status and thereby to gain recognition as an heir to their father’s estate. It thus enabled a claim to be made to a share in an estate in cases where the winding up had already begun before the entry into force of the Act but not where the winding up had been completed. The domestic courts had found that the applicants’ father’s estate had been definitively wound up in 1955, that is, before their filiation was established. It followed that at the date of their father’s death the applicants had no right to inherit from his estate, which did not therefore form part of their property. In that regard, the case could be distinguished from Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands (see Information Note no. 23), in which the applicant had obtained legal recognition of his family ties with his deceased father through a grant of letters of legitimation although that legitimation was not fully effective. In the applicants’ case, the Court found that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was not applicable and that Article 14 could not, therefore, be relied on in conjunction with it: incompatible ratione materiae .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes