CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 septembre 2007

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 100 August-September 2007 Associazione Nazionale Reduci Dalla Prigionia dall’Internamento e Dalla Guerra di Liberazione and 275 Others v. Germany - 45563/04 Decision 4.9.2007 [Section V] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions Absence of compensation for forced labour under the Nazi regime: inadmissible   Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Absence of compensation for forced labour under the Nazi regime: article 6 inapplicable   Article 14 Discrimination Compensation law excluding from benefits certain categories of forced labourers: inadmissible   The applicants are an association and 275 Italian nationals who were subjected to forced labour in labour camps during the Second World War. In August 2000 a law entered into force which provided for the establishment of a public-law foundation “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” to oversee a scheme to compensate former forced labourers. However, under the law, the former prisoners of war and civilians were entitled to benefits only if they were subjected to forced labour in a concentration camp, a ghetto or under similar conditions. Some of the applicants were denied compensation by the Foundation’s partner, the International Organisation for Migration. Some of them unsuccessfully lodged administrative and constitutional complaints. Inadmissible : Article 5 – In so far as the applicants complained that the Federal Republic of Germany had failed to acknowledge the illegality of the forced labour, deportation and detention, the Convention imposed no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to their ratification of the Convention. This also applied to the legal situation of the Federal Republic of Germany which was considered to be the continuation of the German Reich : incompatible ratione materiae . Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – When the Foundation Law had entered into force there had been no legal provision, whether of an international or of a domestic character, supporting the applicants’ claims against the Federal Republic of Germany. Furthermore, the applicants had been unable to point to any case-law in their favour. They could not therefore claim to have had a legitimate expectation of compensation for their detention and forced labour during the Second World War: incompatible ratione materiae. Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1–The present case was distinguishable from the case of Stec and Othersv. the United Kingdom (see Information Note no. 85) for the following reasons. Both the present case and Stec concerned non-contributory benefits which were partly funded by general taxation. However, while Stec dealt with a supplementary regular payment and a regular retirement pension in the framework of social security, the subject of the instant case was a one-off payment granted as compensation for events whichhad occurred even before the Convention entered into force and represented, in a wider sense, a settlement of damages caused by the Second World War. The payments were made outside the framework of social security legislation, and could not be likened to the payments in Stec . The facts of the present case did not fall within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, therefore, did not attract the protection of Article 14 in conjunction with that Article: incompatible ratione materiae. Article 6 § 1 – In so far as the applicants complained of a lack of judicial review of the decisions rendered by the Foundation’s partner organisations, the present case was distinguishable from the case of Woś v. Poland (see Information Note no. 73) in which the Court held that a compensation scheme under the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation for former forced labourers, which was distinct from the system as set up by the Foundation Law, fell within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention. In that case, the Court found that the applicant met the requirements and therefore enjoyed, at least on arguable grounds, a right to compensation. As the applicants were clearly excluded from benefits under the Foundation Law and no provision prior to this law entitled them to any payment, they could not claim to have had a right to compensation, even on arguable grounds. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention did not apply to the facts of the present case: incompatible ratione materiae. See also Poznanski and Others v. Germany , in Information Note no. 99.   © 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