issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 093 (2019)
14.03.2019
Judgments and decisions of 14 March 2019
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing six judgments1 and 17 decisions2:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one
other Chamber judgment in the case of Kangers v. Latvia (application no. 35726/10);
a separate press release has also been issued for one decision, in the case of Campion v. France
(no. 35255/17);
two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and
The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Quilichini v. France (application no. 38299/15)*
The applicant, Séverine Quilichini, is a French national who was born in 1964 and lives in Paris. Born
out of wedlock, her paternity was acknowledged by G.Q. in 1972. The case concerned the division of
property between the two legitimate children of G.Q. and Ms Quilichini, who submitted that she was
the victim of discrimination on grounds of birth in respect of the succession.
Following the death of G.Q. the division of the estate was given effect by a notary in a record of
1992. The entitlements of the legitimate children were fixed at 5/12ths each and those of
Ms Quilichini at 2/12ths pursuant to the former Article 760 of the Civil Code. The notarial record
stipulated that the entitlements were final, regardless of any future changes to the legislation. In
spite of the additional bequest of a flat in Marseilles, the share of the estate inherited by
Ms Quilichini remained less than that received by her siblings. France changed its legislation in 2001,
abolishing discrimination against children born out of wedlock in matters of succession.
A notarial record of 2005 provided for the division of a plot of land in Corsica which had belonged to
Ms Quilichini’s paternal grandfather. The heirs included Ms Quilichini, her half-brother and her
half-sister, representing their deceased father. The entitlements of the heirs were again established
in accordance with the former Article 760 of the Civil Code, such that the applicant was to receive
one half of the share that she would have received as a legitimate child. The tribunal de grande
instance upheld Ms Quilichini’s claim in 2011 for the amendment of the record. That judgment was,
however, overturned by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that the record of 1992 had settled the
succession with final effect, including in respect of the property covered by the 2005 record. An
appeal on points of law was dismissed in 2015.
Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in
conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant
argued that she had been treated differently from the other heirs in a disproportionate manner, as
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
