PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 34406/97) against the French Republic lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a French national, Mr Claude Mazurek (“the applicant”), on 13 December 1996.

On 20 October 1997 the Commission decided to give notice of the application to the French Government (“the Government”) and to invite them to submit observations in writing on its admissibility and merits. The Government submitted their observations on 9 March 1998, after an extension of the time allowed, and the applicant replied on 22 April 1998.

Following the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention on 1 November 1998 and in accordance with Article 5 § 2 thereof, the application was examined by the Court.

In accordance with Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the President of the Court, Mr L. Wildhaber, assigned the case to the Third Section. The Chamber constituted within that Section included ex officio Mr J.-P. Costa, the judge elected in respect of France (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 26 § 1 (a)), and Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the Section (Rule 26 § 1 (a)). The other members designated by the latter to complete the Chamber were Mr L. Loucaides, Mrs F. Tulkens, Mr W. Fuhrmann, Mr K. Jungwiert and Mr K. Traja (Rule 26 § 1 (b)).

On 4 May 1999 the Chamber declared the application admissible and decided to invite the parties to submit their observations on the merits at a hearing.

The hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 12 October 1999. There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mrs M. Dubrocard, Deputy Director, Human Rights Division, Legal Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent, Mrs L. Delahaye, magistrat, seconded to the Human Rights Division, Legal Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mrs M. Faucheux-bureau, magistrat, General Civil Law Office, Civil Affairs Department, Ministry of Justice, Counsel; (b) for the applicant Mr A. Ottan, of the Montpellier Bar, Counsel. The applicant also attended the hearing. The Court heard addresses by Mr Ottan and Mrs Dubrocard.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant, Claude Mazurek, is a French national who was born in Avignon in 1942 and lives at La Grande-Motte.

The applicant’s mother died on 1 August 1990 of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) encephalopathy, having been infected after a blood transfusion. She left two children: a son, Alain, born out of wedlock in 1936 and legitimised by his mother’s marriage in 1937, and the applicant, born in 1942, on whose birth certificate only his mother’s name was entered as a parent, she being still married at the time of his birth, but living separately from her husband. They divorced in July 1944.

On 30 April 1991 Alain brought an action against the applicant in the Nîmes tribunal de grande instance seeking an order that his mother’s estate be divided by a notary, that the applicant, as an adulterine child, could not lay claim to more than a quarter of it and that there be deposited with the notary a sum of money unlawfully withdrawn by the applicant from his mother’s account and transferred to a personal account while their mother was in a coma.

In his pleadings, the applicant agreed to the appointment of a notary to divide the estate, but submitted that Article 760 of the Civil Code, which restricts the inheritance rights of adulterine children, was discriminatory and incompatible with Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 334 of the Civil Code, which enshrines the principle that children born in wedlock and children born out of wedlock have equal rights. He requested the court to hold that he had the same inheritance rights as a legitimate child. He also submitted that the amount which he had been requested to deposit with a notary had been transferred as a gift which he was not required to bring into account, as evidenced by a letter from the deceased of 20 January 1988, a general power of attorney for bank transactions, dated 2 February 1988, and witness statements.

In a judgment of 21 January 1993 the court ordered the estate to be divided. With regard to the applicant’s rights, it referred to Article 760 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 17 below). The court conceded that Article 760 of the Civil Code represented a derogation from the principle, enshrined in the first paragraph of Article 334 of the Civil Code, that children should be treated equally regardless of descent, but held that its purpose was not to discriminate between children on the grounds of their birth but to ensure minimum compliance with marital commitments on the part of the married parent who engenders an illegitimate child. It accordingly concluded that Article 760 was necessary in order to protect the rights of others and that it was a principle of public policy which was not contrary to the Convention. In respect of the sum which had been withdrawn by the applicant and transferred to his own account, the court held that the applicant had merely executed his mother’s intention to gift him a sum of money in addition to his share in the estate and that although that gift should notionally be brought into account in calculating the disposable portion of the estate, it was inappropriate as matters stood to order that the amount in question be deposited with the notary dividing the estate.

The applicant appealed, arguing, among other things, that Article 760 of the Civil Code was incompatible with Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

In a judgment of 24 March 1994, the Nîmes Court of Appeal upheld the provisions of the lower court’s judgment ordering the estate to be divided and determining the applicant’s inheritance rights. It considered, however, that the amount transferred to the applicant’s account should be returned to the estate to be divided because he had not proved that his mother had intended it as a gift.

With regard to the complaint that the discrimination between legitimate children and adulterine children was incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, the Court of Appeal held: “In the instant case the provisions of Article 760 of the Civil Code, which limit the inheritance rights of adulterine children, are directly linked to the French legal principle of public policy according to which marriage should be monogamous and the interests of the spouse and legitimate children of an adulterer protected. Article 760 was not enacted in order to disadvantage adulterine children, but to protect the interests of the spouse and legitimate children of an adulterer; the provision does not therefore intentionally discriminate against adulterine children, but ensures the protection of children born of the marriage who might be disadvantaged on the division of their parents’ estate by the presence of an adulterine child who, on account of the predecease of the non-adulterous spouse and the system of matrimonial property elected by the spouses, might otherwise inherit from his or her parent both the assets from that parent’s estate and the assets from the estate of the spouse who is not his or her parent. The court was thus properly entitled to hold that it was not the intention of the legislature to discriminate between children on the grounds of their birth, but to ensure minimum compliance with the marital obligations of a married parent with regard to his or her legitimate children; the court was also properly entitled to hold that Article 760 of the Civil Code was a provision necessary for the protection of the rights of others, that it was a French legal principle of public policy and that it was not contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The applicant appealed on points of law to the Court of Cassation, which delivered its judgment on 25 June 1996. With regard to the applicant’s complaint of unjustified discrimination on grounds of birth between children born in wedlock and children born out of wedlock, contrary to Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, the Court of Cassation held that inheritance rights had nothing to do with respect for private and family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. In respect of the complaint that the Court of Appeal had ordered the sum transferred to the applicant’s account to be returned to the estate to be divided, the Court of Cassation held that in deciding that the facts of the case had not shown any intention on the part of the deceased to bestow a gift on her son in advance of the division of her estate the Court of Appeal had determined an issue which it alone had jurisdiction to determine.

On 14 January 1994 the Commission of the Compensation Fund for Transfusion Patients and Haemophiliacs awarded the applicant, in his personal capacity, compensation of 40,000 French francs (FRF) and assessed the deceased’s loss at FRF 500,000, to be paid to her heirs. That amount was thus paid to the notary dealing with the estate and the applicant subsequently received one quarter of it.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e1
001-58456_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
34406/97
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58456_a11_e2
001-58456_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
French Republic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58456_a11_e3
001-58456_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
French
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e4
001-58456_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Claude Mazurek
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e5
001-58456_a11_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
13 December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e6
001-58456_a11_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
20 October 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e2
001-58456_a11_em7
ORG
NO_MASK
001-58456_a11_em2
French Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e7
001-58456_a11_em8
DATETIME
QUASI
9 March 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e8
001-58456_a11_em9
DATETIME
QUASI
22 April 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e9
001-58456_a11_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e10
001-58456_a11_em11
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr L. Wildhaber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58456_a11_e11
001-58456_a11_em12
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J.-P. Costa
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e2
001-58456_a11_em13
ORG
NO_MASK
001-58456_a11_em2
France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e12
001-58456_a11_em14
PERSON
NO_MASK
Sir Nicolas Bratza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e13
001-58456_a11_em15
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr L. Loucaides
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e14
001-58456_a11_em16
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mrs F. Tulkens
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e15
001-58456_a11_em17
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr W. Fuhrmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e16
001-58456_a11_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Mr K. Jungwiert
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e17
001-58456_a11_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Mr K. Traja
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e18
001-58456_a11_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
4 May 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e19
001-58456_a11_em21
LOC
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e20
001-58456_a11_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
12 October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e21
001-58456_a11_em23
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs M. Dubrocard
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e22
001-58456_a11_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Division
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e23
001-58456_a11_em25
ORG
NO_MASK
Legal Affairs Department
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e24
001-58456_a11_em26
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mrs L. Delahaye
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e22
001-58456_a11_em27
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Division
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e23
001-58456_a11_em28
ORG
NO_MASK
Legal Affairs Department
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e25
001-58456_a11_em29
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mrs M. Faucheux-bureau
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e26
001-58456_a11_em30
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Ottan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e27
001-58456_a11_em31
ORG
QUASI
Montpellier Bar
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e26
001-58456_a11_em32
PERSON
QUASI
001-58456_a11_em30
Mr Ottan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e21
001-58456_a11_em33
PERSON
DIRECT
001-58456_a11_em23
Mrs Dubrocard
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e28
001-58456_a11_em34
PERSON
DIRECT
Claude Mazurek
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e3
001-58456_a11_em35
DEM
NO_MASK
French
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e29
001-58456_a11_em36
LOC
QUASI
Avignon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e30
001-58456_a11_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
1942
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e31
001-58456_a11_em38
LOC
QUASI
La Grande-Motte
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e32
001-58456_a11_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
1 August 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e33
001-58456_a11_em40
PERSON
QUASI
Alain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e34
001-58456_a11_em41
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1936
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e35
001-58456_a11_em42
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1937
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e30
001-58456_a11_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
1942
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e36
001-58456_a11_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
July 1944
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e37
001-58456_a11_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
30 April 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e33
001-58456_a11_em46
PERSON
QUASI
Alain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58456_a11_e38
001-58456_a11_em47
ORG
QUASI
Nîmes tribunal de grande
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e39
001-58456_a11_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
20 January 1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e40
001-58456_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
2 February 1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e41
001-58456_a11_em50
DATETIME
QUASI
21 January 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e42
001-58456_a11_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
24 March 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e43
001-58456_a11_em52
ORG
QUASI
Nîmes Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e43
001-58456_a11_em53
ORG
NO_MASK
001-58456_a11_em52
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e3
001-58456_a11_em54
DEM
NO_MASK
French
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e3
001-58456_a11_em55
DEM
NO_MASK
French
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e44
001-58456_a11_em56
ORG
NO_MASK
European Convention on Human Rights
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e45
001-58456_a11_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e46
001-58456_a11_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
25 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e45
001-58456_a11_em59
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e43
001-58456_a11_em60
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e45
001-58456_a11_em61
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e43
001-58456_a11_em62
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58456_a11_e47
001-58456_a11_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
14 January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58456_a11_e48
001-58456_a11_em64
ORG
NO_MASK
Commission of the Compensation Fund for Transfusion Patients and Haemophiliacs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58456_a11_e49
001-58456_a11_em65
QUANTITY
QUASI
40,000 French francs (FRF)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58456_a11_e50
001-58456_a11_em66
QUANTITY
QUASI
FRF 500,000
Claude Mazurek
FRA
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Claude Mazurek