The University of Texas at Austin   School of Law

Main menu:

Case:
Civ. 1e Bull. Civ., 1996 I no 268 p. 188
Date:
25 June 1996
Translated by:
Tony Weir
Copyright:
Professor B. S. Markesinis

On the second ground for application for review, both limbs:

Given that the Court of Appeal’s decision on the division of a mother’s estate between M. X., a natural child conceived during the marriage, and M. Y., born legitimate, is criticised by M. X. for applying article 760 Code civil which in such case provides for a reduction in the part falling to the natural child, arguing that the discrimination effected by this provision of municipal law between natural and legitimate children, based solely on their birth, is unjustified and in violation of articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Liberties and article 2 of the New York Convention on the Rights of the Child of 26 January 1990;

But given that rights of succession have nothing to do with the respect for private life required by article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Liberties and guaranteed against discrimination by article 14 of that Convention; and given that the New York Convention of 26 January 1990 is inapplicable in this case since it covers only children defined as human beings who have not y et reached the age of majority ;

Given that on these points the judgment under attack is justified in law;

For these reasons DISMISSES the application for review.

Back to top

This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.