  []

MAZUREK v. FRANCE

Prohibition of discrimination – violation Article 14

Protection of property – violation Protocol No. 1, Article 1

The Convention prohibition of different treatment of persons in comparable situations except where
there was an objective and reasonable justification was not satisfied by French law providing child of
adulterous marriage with half the inheritance portion of a legitimate child. There was a clear trend in
other member States of the Council of Europe towards the abolition of discrimination in relation to
adulterine children. The Court could not disregard such developments in its necessarily evolutive
interpretation of the Convention. An adulterine child could not be reproached with events which were
not the child’s fault, yet such a child was penalised as regards the division of an estate.

In a judgment notified on  February  in the case of Mazurek v. France, the

European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation
of Article  of Protocol No.  (protection of property) taken together with Article
 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court held, by five votes to two, that it was not necessary to examine the
applicant’s complaints under Article  (right to respect for private and family life)
taken together with Article  of the Convention. Under Article  (just satisfaction)
of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant ,. French francs (FRF)
for pecuniary damage, FRF , for non-pecuniary damage and FRF ,
for legal costs and expenses.
This judgment is not final. Pursuant to Article , Section  of the Convention,
within three months from the date of the judgment of a Chamber, any party to the
case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.

1. Principal facts
The applicant, Claude Mazurek, was born in  and lives at La Grande-Motte
(France). After the death of his mother in , Mr Mazurek, the child of an
adulterous union, was entitled to a portion of her estate, the size of that portion
being a matter in dispute between himself and a legitimated child. At the latter’s
request, the civil courts ordered the estate to be divided in such a way that the
applicant’s portion would be one quarter instead of the half to which he would
have been entitled if he had not been adulterine.


  []

Under Article  of the French Civil Code, the child of an adulterous union
entitled to a portion of his deceased parent’s estate whose claim competes with the
claims of any legitimate children of that parent is entitled to only half of the portion
he would have received if he himself had been a legitimate child.

2. Procedure of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on
 December . On  November  the case was transmitted to the European
Court of Human Rights. It was declared admissible on  May  and a public
hearing was held on  October .

3. Summary of the judgment

Complaints
Mr Mazurek complained of an infringement of his right to respect for his family
life within the meaning of Article  of the Convention and of discrimination on
account of his birth, within the meaning of Article . He further complained of
an infringement of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within
the meaning of Article  of Protocol No.  to the Convention.

Decision of the Court

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14
The Court noted in the first place that the Government had not contested the fact
that, under the relevant Articles of the Civil Code, the two half-brothers were not
in the same situation vis-à-vis their mother’s estate.
It noted that it was because the applicant was the child of an adulterous union
that the portion of the estate to which he would have been entitled if his mother
had been unmarried when he was born or if he had been legitimate had been
reduced by half, to his half-brother’s advantage, and that that difference in treatment
was expressly provided for in Article  of the Civil Code.
The Court observed in that connection that with regard to enjoyment of the
rights and freedoms secured by the Convention Article  prohibited different
treatment of persons in comparable situations except where there was an objective
and reasonable justification.
The Court therefore had to determine whether the alleged difference in treatment
was justified.
It considered that it could not be excluded that the aim pleaded by the Govern-
ment, namely protection of the traditional family, might be deemed legitimate.

