FIRST CHAMBER
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 20777/92
by V.R. and four others
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 1 September 1993, the following members being present:
MM. A. WEITZEL, President
C.L. ROZAKIS
F. ERMACORA
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
G.B. REFFI
N. BRATZA
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 14 August 1992 by
V.R. and four others against the United Kingdom and registered on 7
October 1992 under file No. 20777/92;
Having regard to :
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
19 March 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicant on 13 May 1993;
- the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first, second, third and fourth applicants were born in 1951,
1952, 1954 and 1956 respectively; they are resident in Guernsey. The
fifth applicant was born in 1955 and is resident in Australia. All the
applicants are British citizens. They are represented before the
Commission by Mr. Nicholas Barnes, an advocate practising in St. Peter
Port, Guernsey.
The facts as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as
follows.
On 7 January 1992, D.J. died leaving an estate of real property
in Guernsey worth approximately £100,000. The applicants are the
children born out of wedlock of the deceased. Before her death, the
deceased had sought advice about the division of her estate from the
Guernsey Citizens Advice Bureau since she wished her children to
inherit equally. She did not advise them that her children were born
out of wedlock and was informed that under Guernsey law her children
would inherit equally.
Following their mother's death, the applicants assumed that they
would inherit her estate. However their advocates advised them that
under Guernsey law, in the absence of express provision in a will,
children born out of wedlock cannot inherit from their parents. The
deceased's estate was therefore to be inherited by her eight brothers
and sisters.
The applicants sought to obtain the legal heirs' consent to a
transfer of the estate to them. Following initial indication that the
legal heirs agreed to a transfer, the applicants' advocates wrote to
them on 6 February 1992 requesting written confirmation.
On 13 February 1992, two replied confirming the agreement. Two
further acceptances were received on 20 and 24 February 1992.
Notification of a refusal was received on 25 February 1992 and 9 April.
On 28 May an acceptance was withdrawn and replaced with an offer to
transfer half of the interest. On 29 May a further refusal was received
and on 24 June one acceptance was withdrawn. Subsequently, two of the
legal heirs have executed a transfer of their interest to the
appplicants.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that the provisions of Guernsey law with
respect to inheritance from their mother are unfairly discriminatory
against them as children born out of wedlock and that this constitutes
a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the
Convention. They also invoke in their reply to the Government's
observations Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
The applicants complain of the provisions of Guernsey law which
they submit are unfairly discriminatory in respect of their right as
children born out of wedlock to inherit on the intestacy of their
mother. They invoke Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction
with Article 8 and also Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. 14+8+P1-1).
The Government have submitted, inter alia, that the applicants
have failed to introduce their complaints within the six month time-
limit imposed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention since the
applicants' mother died on 7 January 1992 and the application was
introduced on 14 August 1992.
The applicants submit that the six month time limit should run
from moment that they became aware that the legal heirs would not
transfer their interest i.e. the date of the first refusal which was
25 February 1992. Alternatively they submit that in any case the
applicants are complaining about a continuing situation which is the
situation resulting from the death of their mother.
The Commission recalls that in the absence of domestic remedies
the six month time-limit runs from the act alleged to constitute a
violation of the Convention: where the alleged violation consists of
a continuing situation, the six month time-limit has no application
unless and until that situation comes to an end (see eg. No.11123/84,
Dec. 9.12.87, D.R. 54 p. 52).
In the present case, the essence of the applicants' complaints
is the discriminatory effect of Guernsey inheritance and succession
provisions. The Commission recalls that similar complaints were in
issue in the Marckx case (Eur. Court H.R. Marckx judgment of 13 June
1976 Series A no. 31 ) and the Johnston case (Eur. Court H.R. Johnston
judgment of 18 December 1986 Series A no. 112). In the latter the
Court found violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) as regarded the legal
situation (including the testamentary and succession aspect) of a child
born out of wedlock under Irish law. The basis of this decision was its
conclusion that respect for family life required a state to allow ties
between the mother and child to develop normally with appropriate
social and legal recognition. Both the cases before the Court involved
a mother and child born out of wedlock who were both alive. While the
relationship subsists, there is in the Commission's view a continuing
situation. This situation must however end when the mother dies at
which point the rights to her estate are determined. The six month time
limit will in the absence of other supervening factors begin to run
from that date.
The applicants have submitted that the decisive date should be
that when they became aware that the legal heirs would not transfer
their interest. The Commission considers however that these private
negotiations which involved no dispute as to the legal rights to the
estate cannot be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the
six month time-limit.
In light of the above, the Commission finds that the time-limit
began to run on 7 January 1992 whereas the applicantion was introduced
more than six months later on 14 August 1992. It follows that the
application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under
Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
For these reasons the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy