PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 29762/10) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Ms Gertraud Mitzinger (“the applicant”), on 20 May 2010.

The applicant was represented by Ms C. Erk, a lawyer practising in Bayreuth. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by one of their Agents, Ms K. Behr, of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection.

Relying on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, the applicant, who was born outside marriage, alleged that she had suffered discrimination on the grounds of her birth by the application of the relevant provisions of domestic inheritance law by the national courts.

On 26 May 2015 the complaint concerning alleged discrimination was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1940 in Troschenreuth, in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR), and lives in Bayreuth.

A. Background to the case

The applicant is the natural and only daughter of Mr A.W., who recognised paternity in 1951. She lived in the territory of the former GDR until 1984, while her father lived in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), having married. The father and the daughter corresponded regularly during that period. Between 1954 and 1959, the applicant also visited her father and his wife once a year. After the applicant obtained an exit permit in 1984 for herself, her husband and her younger daughter, she left the GDR and moved to Bavaria. Thereafter the applicant visited her father on a regular basis until 2007. He died on 4 January 2009.

B. Proceedings in the domestic courts

On 14 January 2009 the applicant applied to the Memmingen District Court for the right to administer her father’s estate, asserting the incapacity of her father’s wife to protect the applicant’s inheritance due to a grave illness, and notified the District Court of her inheritance claims. Furthermore, she asked to receive copies of all documents relating to the estate. She asserted that between 2002 and 2007 she had regularly visited her father at his retirement home and had talked to him on the telephone. Subsequently, her own health had prevented her from visiting. Telephone calls had been impossible because her father’s health had meant he had no longer been able to use a telephone. The retirement home had been in possession of her address and telephone number, and had phoned her on several occasions.

In a decision of 28 January 2009 the Memmingen District Court dismissed the applicant’s application, as there were no indications that the applicant’s father’s wife could not protect the inheritance. In addition, being born before 1 July 1949 and thus not being a statutory heir, she had no right to receive copies of documents about the estate.

On 6 February 2009 the applicant appealed to the Memmingen Regional Court, arguing in particular that she needed the power to administer the estate because her father’s wife suffered from dementia and that she was a statutory heir because she was her father’s natural daughter.

In a decision of 23 February 2009 the Memmingen Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision refusing to give her the power to administer her father’s estate, holding that the applicant was not a statutory heir and thus had no right to apply. The Regional Court referred to the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act of 19 August 1969 (see paragraph 15 below) and to a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 8 December 1976, in which the provision had been found to be in conformity with the Basic Law (see paragraph 16 below).

On 8 March 2009 the applicant appealed to the Munich Court of Appeal, arguing that the application of the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act would discriminate against her and breach her inheritance rights and was therefore not in conformity with the Basic Law. The applicant pointed out that in her case there was no need to protect the legitimate expectations of the deceased or other heirs as she was her father’s only daughter and her father had been separated from his wife for more than ten years when he had died. Furthermore, cultural and social changes within society had to be considered when interpreting the Basic Law.

In a decision of 14 May 2009 the Munich Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that it was bound by the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court in which the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act had been found to be in conformity with the Basic Law. In the Court of Appeal’s view, the provision did not contravene the Basic Law, despite German reunification, as the Federal Constitutional Court had held in a decision of 20 November 2003 (file no. 1 BvR 2257/03).

On 17 July 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court, claiming discrimination as a result of the application of the aforementioned provision. According to her there were no apparent reasons why children born outside marriage should be treated differently from those born within marriage. That was particularly true in her case because she was her father’s only child. The applicant argued that the Munich Court of Appeal, when considering an appeal, had to respect Article 6 § 5 of the Basic Law, which provided that children born outside marriage must be provided by legislation with the same opportunities for physical and mental development and for their position in society as those enjoyed by children born within marriage. That provision prohibited a generalised application of the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act.

In a decision of 8 December 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the complaint, which it considered inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation (no. 1 BvR 2021/09). It observed, in particular, that the applicant had failed sufficiently to address the arguments of the Munich Court of Appeal’s decision. As the applicant doubted the validity of the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act, which had previously been declared valid by the Federal Constitutional Court, she had been obliged to give further reasons, which she had failed to do.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e1
001-170836_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
29762/10
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-170836_a8_e2
001-170836_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Republic of Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e3
001-170836_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e4
001-170836_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Ms Gertraud Mitzinger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e5
001-170836_a8_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
20 May 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e6
001-170836_a8_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Ms C. Erk
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e7
001-170836_a8_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Bayreuth
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e3
001-170836_a8_em8
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e8
001-170836_a8_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Ms K. Behr
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e9
001-170836_a8_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e10
001-170836_a8_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
26 May 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e11
001-170836_a8_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
1940
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e12
001-170836_a8_em13
LOC
QUASI
Troschenreuth
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170836_a8_e13
001-170836_a8_em14
LOC
NO_MASK
German Democratic Republic (GDR)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e7
001-170836_a8_em15
LOC
NO_MASK
Bayreuth
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e14
001-170836_a8_em16
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A.W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e15
001-170836_a8_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
1951
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e16
001-170836_a8_em18
LOC
NO_MASK
GDR
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e17
001-170836_a8_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
1984
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170836_a8_e18
001-170836_a8_em20
LOC
NO_MASK
Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170836_a8_e19
001-170836_a8_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
1954
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170836_a8_e20
001-170836_a8_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
1959
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e17
001-170836_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
1984
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e16
001-170836_a8_em24
LOC
NO_MASK
GDR
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e21
001-170836_a8_em25
LOC
QUASI
Bavaria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e22
001-170836_a8_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e23
001-170836_a8_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
4 January 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e24
001-170836_a8_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
14 January 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e25
001-170836_a8_em29
ORG
QUASI
Memmingen District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e26
001-170836_a8_em30
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170836_a8_e27
001-170836_a8_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170836_a8_e22
001-170836_a8_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e28
001-170836_a8_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
28 January 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e25
001-170836_a8_em34
ORG
QUASI
Memmingen District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170836_a8_e29
001-170836_a8_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 1949
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e30
001-170836_a8_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
6 February 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e31
001-170836_a8_em37
ORG
QUASI
Memmingen Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e32
001-170836_a8_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
23 February 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e31
001-170836_a8_em39
ORG
QUASI
Memmingen Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170836_a8_e26
001-170836_a8_em40
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e33
001-170836_a8_em41
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e34
001-170836_a8_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
19 August 1969
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e35
001-170836_a8_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e36
001-170836_a8_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
8 December 1976
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e37
001-170836_a8_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
8 March 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e38
001-170836_a8_em46
ORG
QUASI
Munich Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-170836_a8_e39
001-170836_a8_em47
DATETIME
NO_MASK
ten years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e40
001-170836_a8_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
14 May 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e38
001-170836_a8_em49
ORG
QUASI
Munich Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e35
001-170836_a8_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e35
001-170836_a8_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e41
001-170836_a8_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
20 November 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e42
001-170836_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
17 July 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e35
001-170836_a8_em54
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e38
001-170836_a8_em55
ORG
QUASI
Munich Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e43
001-170836_a8_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
8 December 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e35
001-170836_a8_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e38
001-170836_a8_em58
ORG
QUASI
Munich Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-170836_a8_e35
001-170836_a8_em59
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
Gertraud Mitzinger
DEU
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Gertraud Mitzinger