CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 avril 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 41 April 2002 Pla and Puncernau v. Andorra (partial dec.) - 69498/01 Decision 23.4.2002 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Absence of cassation appeal against dismissal of appeal: inadmissible The applicants are an adoptive son and his mother. Their respective father and husband had inherited from his mother in a will drawn up before a lawyer which provided for the estate to be passed on to legitimate children. It contained a substitution clause under which in the event of his being unable to inherit, the estate would pass to his elder sister, and failing that to the son of his younger sister. In a codicil dated 3 July 1995, the applicants' adoptive father/husband bequeathed the property from his mother's inheritance to his adoptive son as remainderman, with a life interest to his wife. After his death, the great grand-daughters of the testatrix brought a civil action to set aside the codicil of 3 July 1995 and secure the return by the applicants of all the property bequeathed by their great grandmother, on the grounds that as an adoptive child, the male applicant could not benefit from her estate. The Batlles d’Andorra court rejected their claim, on the grounds that the testatrix had not intended to exclude adopted children from her estate. In May 2000, on appeal, the Andorra high court overturned the lower courts' decision. It accepted the appellants' claim, set aside the codicil of 3 July 1995, declared that the appellants were the lawful heirs to their great grandmother's estate and ordered the applicants to restore the property in question. The applicants lodged an appeal to the high court to overturn its previous decision and an empara appeal to the Constitutional Court, but these were dismissed. Communicated under Article 8 taken in isolation and in combination with Article 14. Inadmissible under Articles 12 and 14. Inadmissible under Articles 6 § 1 and 13: the absence in Andorran law of a court of cassation to hear appeals on points of law against decisions handed down on appeal was not incompatible with Article 6, which did not oblige states to establish courts of cassation. In this case, the applicants' case had been considered twice on its merits by two courts, which had reached a decision, giving their reasons, following proceedings at which all the parties were represented, while at final instance the applicants were able to lodge an empara appeal before the Constitutional Court: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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