Information Note on the Court’s case-law 56

September 2003

Koua Poirrez v. France - 40892/98

Judgment 30.9.2003 [Section II]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Possessions

Refusal to grant non-contributory handicapped adult allowance: violation

Article 1

Jurisdiction of States

Refusal to grant an allowance on the ground, inter alia , that there is no reciprocity agreement been the applicant’s country of nationality and France: violation

Article 14

Discrimination

Refusal to grant an handicapped adult allowance to a foreign national: violation

Facts : The applicant, an Ivory Cost national, suffers from a physical handicap. He was adopted by a French national in July 1987, but the declaration of French nationality for which he applied in December of that year was declared inadmissible on the ground that he was an adult on the date of the application. He appealed against that decision. However, a card certifying that he was disabled was issued to him, but the Family Allowances Office refused to award him a disabled adult’s allowance. In June 1990, the applicant appealed to the Friendly Settlements Commission, which none the less confirmed the decision, stating that he was neither of French nationality nor a national of a country which had entered into reciprocal agreements with France, as required under the Social Security Code. The applicant then appealed to the Social Security Court, which in June 1991 decided to stay proceedings and to refer a question to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg for a preliminary ruling. In December 1992, that court ruled that the French legislation was compatible with the European provisions. In March 1993, the Social Security Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld that judgment in June 1995 and the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on a point of law in January 1998.

Law : Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: a) Applicability : The applicant had a pecuniary right for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, since payment of the allowance was prescribed by the applicable legislation. The refusal to pay him the allowance was based on criteria, French nationality or nationality of a country which had concluded a reciprocal agreement with France in respect of that allowance, which constitute a distinction to which Article 14 applies.

b) Merits : the refusal to award the allowance in issue was based solely on the finding that the applicant did not possess the appropriate nationality, a condition of eligibility laid down in Article. L. 821-1 of the Social Security Code as then in force. The applicant satisfied the other statutory conditions for award of the social security allowance and, moreover, was entitled to the allowance after the new law abolished the nationality condition. The applicant was then in a situation comparable to that of French nationals or nationals of countries which had entered into a reciprocal agreement as regards his right to the benefit. The difference in treatment, as regards the benefit of the social security allowances, between French nationals or nationals of countries who had signed a reciprocal agreement and other foreign nationals was not based on any “objective and reasonable justification”. Even though, at the material time, French was not bound by any reciprocal agreements with the Ivory Coast, it undertook, in ratifying the Convention, to secure “to everyone within [its] jurisdiction”, as the applicant was, the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of the Convention.

Conclusion : violation (six votes to one).

Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time): The proceedings lasted seven years and more than seven months for three degrees of jurisdiction, of which the period before the ECJ is not to be taken into account. The case, which was quite complex, reveals no delay attributable to the judicial authorities.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimous).

Article 41 – The Court awards damages and costs and expenses.

© 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