Search
document

Document text Analytics

V.R. AND FOUR OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 20777/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1668

Document date: September 1, 1993

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

V.R. AND FOUR OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 20777/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1668

Document date: September 1, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

FIRST CHAMBER

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 20777/92

by V.R. and four others

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 1 September 1993, the following members being present:

MM. A. WEITZEL, President

C.L. ROZAKIS

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

G.B. REFFI

N. BRATZA

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 14 August 1992 by

V.R. and four others against the United Kingdom and registered on 7

October 1992 under file No. 20777/92;

Having regard to :

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

19 March 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 13 May 1993;

- the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The first, second, third and fourth applicants were born in 1951,

1952, 1954 and 1956 respectively; they are resident in Guernsey. The

fifth applicant was born in 1955 and is resident in Australia. All the

applicants are British citizens. They are represented before the

Commission by Mr. Nicholas Barnes, an advocate practising in St. Peter

Port, Guernsey.

The facts as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as

follows.

On 7 January 1992, D.J. died leaving an estate of real property

in Guernsey worth approximately £100,000. The applicants are the

children born out of wedlock of the deceased. Before her death, the

deceased had sought advice about the division of her estate from the

Guernsey Citizens Advice Bureau since she wished her children to

inherit equally. She did not advise them that her children were born

out of wedlock and was informed that under Guernsey law her children

would inherit equally.

Following their mother's death, the applicants assumed that they

would inherit her estate. However their advocates advised them that

under Guernsey law, in the absence of express provision in a will,

children born out of wedlock cannot inherit from their parents. The

deceased's estate was therefore to be inherited by her eight brothers

and sisters.

The applicants sought to obtain the legal heirs' consent to a

transfer of the estate to them. Following initial indication that the

legal heirs agreed to a transfer, the applicants' advocates wrote to

them on 6 February 1992 requesting written confirmation.

On 13 February 1992, two replied confirming the agreement. Two

further acceptances were received on 20 and 24 February 1992.

Notification of a refusal was received on 25 February 1992 and 9 April.

On 28 May an acceptance was withdrawn and replaced with an offer to

transfer half of the interest. On 29 May a further refusal was received

and on 24 June one acceptance was withdrawn. Subsequently, two of the

legal heirs have executed a transfer of their interest to the

appplicants.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that the provisions of Guernsey law with

respect to inheritance from their mother are unfairly discriminatory

against them as children born out of wedlock and that this constitutes

a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the

Convention. They also invoke in their reply to the Government's

observations Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

THE LAW

The applicants complain of the provisions of Guernsey law which

they submit are unfairly discriminatory in respect of their right as

children born out of wedlock to inherit on the intestacy of their

mother. They invoke Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction

with Article 8 and also Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. 14+8+P1-1).

The Government have submitted, inter alia, that the applicants

have failed to introduce their complaints within the six month time-

limit imposed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention since the

applicants' mother died on 7 January 1992 and the application was

introduced on 14 August 1992.

The applicants submit that the six month time limit should run

from moment that they became aware that the legal heirs would not

transfer their interest i.e. the date of the first refusal which was

25 February 1992. Alternatively they submit that in any case the

applicants are complaining about a continuing situation which is the

situation resulting from the death of their mother.

The Commission recalls that in the absence of domestic remedies

the six month time-limit runs from the act alleged to constitute a

violation of the Convention: where the alleged violation consists of

a continuing situation, the six month time-limit has no application

unless and until that situation comes to an end (see eg. No.11123/84,

Dec. 9.12.87, D.R. 54 p. 52).

In the present case, the essence of the applicants' complaints

is the discriminatory effect of Guernsey inheritance and succession

provisions. The Commission recalls that similar complaints were in

issue in the Marckx case (Eur. Court H.R. Marckx judgment of 13 June

1976 Series A no. 31 ) and the Johnston case (Eur. Court H.R. Johnston

judgment of 18 December 1986 Series A no. 112). In the latter the

Court found violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) as regarded the legal

situation (including the testamentary and succession aspect) of a child

born out of wedlock under Irish law. The basis of this decision was its

conclusion that respect for family life required a state to allow ties

between the mother and child to develop normally with appropriate

social and legal recognition. Both the cases before the Court involved

a mother and child born out of wedlock who were both alive. While the

relationship subsists, there is in the Commission's view a continuing

situation. This situation must however end when the mother dies at

which point the rights to her estate are determined. The six month time

limit will in the absence of other supervening factors begin to run

from that date.

The applicants have submitted that the decisive date should be

that when they became aware that the legal heirs would not transfer

their interest. The Commission considers however that these private

negotiations which involved no dispute as to the legal rights to the

estate cannot be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the

six month time-limit.

In light of the above, the Commission finds that the time-limit

began to run on 7 January 1992 whereas the applicantion was introduced

more than six months later on 14 August 1992. It follows that the

application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under

Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

For these reasons the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant