Information Note on the Court’s case-law 15

February 2000

Mazurek v. France - 34406/97

Judgment 1.2.2000 [Section III]

Article 14

Discrimination

Discrimination against children of adulterous relationships with regard to inheritance rights: violation

Facts : The applicant’s mother had a first child in 1936 who was legitimated by the marriage she entered into in 1937. The applicant was born in 1942, a t a time when the marriage still existed, but was registered only under the name of his mother as the couple had separated. After the mother’s death, the elder son applied to the TGI for the division of her estate and for a declaration that the applicant, as the child of an adulterous union, could only claim, under Article 760 of the French Civil Code, one quarter of the estate. The applicant, arguing inter alia that this provision was incompatible with the Convention, lodged an application to have the same rights granted to him as to a legitimate child. The court found that the purpose of the discrimination being to ensure the minimal respect for obligations entered into in a marriage, it was necessary for respect of the rights of others and was therefore n ot contrary to the Convention. Appeals lodged by the applicant against that decision were not successful.

Law : Article 1 of Protocol No.1 and Article 14: Protection of the traditional family, which formed the basis of the discrimination under the law, cou ld be considered a legitimate purpose. Nevertheless, international developments in family law, as well as debate taking place in France itself, tended towards the abolition of discrimination with respect to adulterine children. Interpretation of the Conven tion being necessarily evolutive, it had to take these developments into account. In this case, there was no justification for the different treatment of an adulterine child in the division of the estate, since such discrimination would have the effect of penalising the child for events which were not his fault.

Conclusion : violation (unanimous).

In the light of this conclusion, the Court did not find it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14.

Article 41: As the ap plicant had sought, he was awarded as pecuniary damage the difference between the sum he had received and the sum he would have received had he been placed on a equal footing with his half-brother, that is FRF 376,034.61. In addition, he was awarded FRF 20 ,000 for non-pecuniary damage and a sum in compensation for costs incurred both before the French courts and before the Convention institutions.

© 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