Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 121
July 2009
Zeïbek v. Greece - 46368/06
Judgment 9.7.2009 [Section I]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Consequences of family’s loss of nationality on applicant’s status as the mother of a large family and her related pension entitlement: violation
Article 14
Discrimination
Consequences of family’s loss of nationality on applicant’s status as the mother of a large family and her related pension entitlement: violation
Facts: Between 1974 and 1982 the applicant had four children with her husband, who like her was a Greek citizen and a Muslim. When the fourth child was born she became the mother of a “large family” under Greek law. In 1984, while the applicant and her family were visiting her father in Turkey, they all had their Greek nationality withdrawn by a decision of the Minister of the Interior. That decision was based on Article 19 of the Nationality Code as then in force, authorising such a measure against “any person of foreign origin who leaves Greece without intending to resettle there”. The family’s appeals against that decision were dismissed. In 1998 Article 19 of the Nationality Code was repealed. The authorities then invited members of the Muslim community who had been deprived of their Greek nationality to apply for naturalisation, which the applicant and her family did in 1999. In 2000 Greek nationality was restored to the applicant and to three of her children but not to her husband or one daughter (Ilkaï). Being both a minor and married, Ilkaï was considered to be dependent on her husband and was not therefore entitled to acquire Greek nationality through her mother. In 2001 the applicant applied for a pension, payable for life, as the mother of a large family, in accordance with Law no. 1982/1990. However, her application was rejected on the ground that, as her four children did not all have Greek nationality, the statutory requirements were not met. The applicant’s appeals against this refusal were dismissed by the head of the Family Allowance Department, the Department’s litigation board and finally the Supreme Administrative Court, which found that Article 21 of the Constitution – which protected the family and motherhood – was relevant only to the need to preserve and promote the Greek nation and did not concern foreign families living in Greece. By a decision of 2007 the Minister of the Interior revoked the decision by which Ilkaï had been deprived of her Greek nationality.
Law: When Ilkaï was born the applicant’s family all had Greek nationality and the applicant had acquired the status of mother of a large family under Greek law. Under Law no. 860/1979 that status was in principle to be retained for life, even when one or more of the children ceased to be attached to the family. In addition, the Supreme Administrative Court had held that the entitlement to a pension for life of mothers of Greek nationality living permanently and legally in Greece did not depend on the nationality of their children. The applicant’s family had lost their Greek nationality when they travelled to Turkey. That decision of the Ministry of the Interior, of which the applicant and her family had never been informed, had apparently been prompted by a police report according to which the applicant’s family had left the country for good, to settle in Turkey. It had been taken under an Article of the Nationality Code which concerned “any person of foreign origin” and had been applied systematically over a long period to Greek nationals of the Muslim faith, like the applicant and her family. After that Article was repealed in 1998, the applicant and three of her children had been given Greek nationally again in May 2000, but not Ilkaï, who was both a minor and married and was considered to be dependent on her husband. Although the applicant and certain members of her family had been reinstated as Greek nationals, this had not entitled them to all the corresponding rights that were enjoyed by all large families of Greek origin. The reinstatement should have involved recognising the applicant as the mother of a large family with all the benefits arising from that status, as if the withdrawal of nationality had never taken place. The applicant had been subjected to a difference in treatment that was not based on any “objective or reasonable justification”, and had had to bear an excessive and disproportionate burden that upset the fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 8,455 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy