Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19841205-869579
Timestamp: 2016-12-06 10:27:09+00:00
Document Index: 116276503

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 7", "l'article 7", "l'article 7", "l'article 7", "l'article 754", "l'article 14", "l'article 7", "l'article 7", "l'article 14", "l'article 7", "l'article 6", "l'article 78", "l'article 13", "l'article 14", "l'article 1", "l'article 25", "l'article 1", "l'article 14", "l'article 1", "l'article 14", "l'article 1", "l'article 14", "l'article 14", "l'article 27", "l'article 6", "l'article 14", "l'article 1"]

INZE c. AUTRICHE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche INZE c. AUTRICHE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8695/79Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-12-05;8695.79 Analyses : (Art. 41) PREJUDICE MORALParties : Demandeurs : INZEDéfendeurs : AUTRICHETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 8695/79
Maximilian INZE v/AUSTRI A Maximilian INZE c/AUTRICH E DECISION of 5 December 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 5 dÃ©cembre 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention : Length of proceedings in panition of a fami on succession not esamined by the Commission because of subsequent senlement by panies ro the proceedings . Article 14 of the Convention, taken with Article I of the First Protocol : Assignment of farm ; panirion on succession : difference of treatment based on binh (Conrplaint declared admissible) . Article 25 of the Convention : A person obliged by reason of the state of the law, to accepr an unfavourable settlemenr, may claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention where he claincs that the law itself is not compatible with the Convention . Article 1, paragraph I of the First Protocol : The right to inherit, once acquired, is "possessions" even before distribution . Article 1, paragraph 2 of the First Protocol : Legal provisions prohibiting panition of succession to a farm in order to keep it viable are a control of the use of properry in accordance ivith the general interest. Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : DurÃ©e d'une procÃ©dure de panage successoral non examinÃ©e par la Commission en raison d'une transaction intervenue entre les panies . Article 14 de la Convention, combinÃ© avec l'article I du Protocole additionnel : Distinction fondÃ©e sur la naissance dans l'attribution d'une exploitation agricole au cours d'un panage successoral (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) .
Article 25 de la Convention : Peut se prÃ©tendre victime d'une violation de la Convention celui qui a dÃ» accepter une transaction qui lui est dÃ©favorable en raison de disposilions lÃ©gales impÃ©ratives, dont il conteste la compatibilitÃ© avec la Convention . Article 1, paragraphe 1, du Protocole additionnel : Le droit Ã une pan d'une succession Ã©chue est un droit de propriÃ©tÃ©, mÃªme avant partage. A rt icle 1, paragraphe 2, du Protocole additionnel : Les dispositions lÃ©gales qui interdisent le pnrtage successoral d'une esploitation agricole pour maimenir sa viabilitÃ© sont une rÃ©glementation de l'usage des biens conformÃ©ment Ã l'irnÃ©rÃªt gÃ©nÃ©ral .
(franÃ§ais : voir p . 35 )
I . The applicant is an Austrian citizen who was born as an illegitimate child in 1942 . He is resident at Stallhofen, Carinthia, and is represented by Mr . Heinz Walther, a barrister practising in Klagenfurt . 2 . The applicant's mother who had owned a farm at St . Banlmii . Carinthia . died in 1975 and left as her heirs, apan from the applicant, her husband and her second son who was born in wedlock in 1956 . According to the provisions of the Civil Code, the widower was entitled one quarter of the estate, and each of the sons (irTespective of the question of illegitimate or legitimate binh) to 3/ 8 thereof . The applicant and his step-father and half brother declared that they were willing to accept these shares, and the District Court of Klagenfurt decided on 31 March 1976 that the declarations of acceptance were valid .
3 . The farm in question was, however, subject to special regulations of the Carinthian Provincial legislation providing that farms may not be divided in the case of hereditary succession, and that one of the heirs must take over the real property undivided and pay off the other heirs (Hereditary Farnts Act, Erbhtifegesetz, Provincial Law Gazette No . 33/1903) . While leaving unaffected the general regulations of the Civil Code governing the determination of the hereditary shares, this legislation thus regulates the attribution of these shares in real property or kind . For this purpose, it establishes an order of priority between the heirs as to which person will be called to take over the farm . Generally, the older heir takes precedence over the younger, but according to section 7 (2) of the Act, legitimate children take precedence over illegitimate ones . The Act further provides for the exclusion of certain heirs including those who as a consequence of mental or physical defects appear incapable to work themselves the farm (section 7 (4)b) or who by their profession are prevented from working the farm themselves from the fartn house (section 7 (4)d) .
4 . In the present case, the applicant claimed that he should be called to take over his mother's farm as he was her eldest son . He submitted that the regulation providing for the precedence of the legitimate children had in the meantime been abrogated, and that his half brother was in any event excluded as being unfit to work the farm . The question was submitted to the court which on 28 April 1976 held a hearing with the parties and on 26 August 1976 appointed an expert to submit an opinion concerning the following questions : the qualification of the farm as a"hereditary farm" within the meaning of the Provincial Act ; its value for the purpose of determining the sums to be paid out to the ceding heirs ; and the conditions of its exploitation since the death of the applicant's mother . The expert opinion dated I October 1976 was submitted to the court on 27 October . It came to the conclusion that the farm was subject to the provisions of the Provincial Act, and that its value was AS 331,040 .- . The farm was in a very bad condition and could not by itself provide a sufficient livelihood for a family . After the death of the previous owner, it had been worked mainly by her widower who had kept only a few cattle and used all land for pasture . The grassland had partly mn wild, and the fields had no longer been tilled . The coun then held a hearing on 18 January 1977 in order to determine whether the farm was a"hereditary farm" . By a decision of 25 January 1977 which has become final it found that this was the case, and at the same time it fixed the value in accordance with the expert opinion at AS331 .040 .- . 5 . The question of determination of the heir entitled to take over the farm, and the exclusion of the applicant's half brother for this purpose as claimed by the applicant, was referred to the Regional Court of Klagenfurt in accordance with section 7 (4) of the Provincial Act . The District Court submitted its file to the Regional Court on 20 July 1977 . A hearing which was fixed by the Regional Court to take place on 16 January 1978 was however cancelled, and on 17 January 1978 the court returned the file to the District Court with the request to take further evidence relating to the ability of the applicant's half brother to work the farm . The expert opinion was to be supplemented in this respect, and the District Court was asked to join its own legal opinion (as required by section 7 (4) of the :Act) when resubmitting the file . 6 . The District Coun then ordered a supplementary expert opinion which was submitted on 6 April 1978 . It came to the conclusion that the conditions of the exploitation of the farm had further deteriorated . Certain lands had been let to a motocross club, and others to a neighbour who dumped various construction materials there . At the moment, it was therefore hardly possible to speak of an orderly exploitation of the farm . As regards the question of the ability of the applicant's half brother to work the farm besides his job (as an untrained worker), the expert answered in the affirrnative . The work required to be done at the farm was not very much and his working place was not so far away as to prevent his daily presence at the farm .
A hearing of the parties by the District Court had to be postponed several times . It eventually took place on 31 January 1979 . On this occasion, it was stated that there was no agreement between the parties as to who should take over the farm even pending the proceedings . The applicant's step-father and half brother declared that they were opposed to the appointment of a curator . 7 . The District Court resubmitted the file to the Regional Court at the end of February 1979 . The Regional Court decided on 25 June 1979 to rÃ©ject the applicant's application as inadmissible insofar as he sought a finding that his stepfather was excluded from taking over the fartn . The stepfather had in fact not pretented to be entitled to do so . As regards the alleged exclusion of the applicant's half brother, the court found that he was neither prevented by his profession, nor incapable of working the farm besides his job . He could not be held responsible for the negligent exploitation of the farm since his mother's death because it had been done by his father. 8 . The applicant appealed from the above decision to the Graz Court of Appeal claiming that certain evidence had been disregarded by the Regional Court when denying the exclusion of the applicant's half brother . He furthermore submitted that the provision in section 7 (2) of the Provincial Act giving priority to legitimate children had been abrogated by the new version of s . 754 (1) of the Civil Code enacted in 1970 (Fed . law Gazette NÂ° 342)â¢, and by Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights . He requested the court to submit the question of the constitutionality of the provision to the Constitutional Court . The Court of Appeal, however, rejected the appeal on 26 September 1979 . It confirmed the Regional Court's finding that the applicant's half brother was not excluded, and it stated that it had no doubts as to the constitutionality of the provision of the Provincial Act giving precedence to the legitimate children . This provision had an objective justification because it was a peculiarity of the rural family and economic structure that the legitimate children lived with the family at the farm, whereas the illegitimate children were not unfrequendy brought up elsewhere and therefore did not have the same close link to the farm as the legitimate children . This was also the situation in the present case . The Court of Appeal therefore saw no reason to submit to the Constitutional Court the question of the constitutionality of the provision in question . 9 . The applicant appealed further to the Supreme Court to which he submitted in essence the same arguments as to the Coun of Appeal . The Supreme Court, however, found by a decision of 9 April 1980 that the appeal was inadrnissible as it was directed against a decision of the Court of Appeal confirming the decision o f The text if this provision reads as follows : " An illegilimate child shall have the same right of inleslete succession in the estate of his mother as a legitimate child . . ."
Lhe Regional Court . The Supreme Court also dealt with Lhe question of the alleged abrogation of s . 7 (2) of the Provincial Act on Hereditary Farms by section 754 (1) of the Civil Code, as amended, which it denied, and with the question of Lhe conformity of this provision with the constitutional provision in Article 14 of the Convention . In this latter respect, Lhe Supreme Court observed that Article 14 was only applicable in relation to Lhe enjoyment, without discrimination, of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention . Now, the Convention did not deal with the question of hereditary succession, and Article I of the Protocol No . I which secured the peaceful enjoyment of possessions did not exclude regulations providing for different rules of succession according to birth in wedlock or out of wedlock . There were therefore no doubts as to the compatibility of the above provision with the constitutional principle of equality . This principle required the legislation to make no legal distinction based on the personal status of an individual unless this was justified by objective reasons . The challenged regulations of the Provincial Act did not however appear tb be unreasonable . Similar provisions existed also in the provincial legislation of Tyrol (HÃ¼fegesetz) and in the federal legislation for the other provinces (Anerbengesetz) which limited the illegitimate children's rights even further because under this legislation they could only take over a hereditary farm if they had been brought up at the farm . The preparatory materials of this legislation showed that the rank of illegitimat e children after that of Lhe legitimate children was based on convictions of the mral society . The regulation in question was not contradicted either by attempts to assimilate the legal position of illegitimate children to that of legitimate children because it reflected Lhe special convictions and attitudes of Lhe rural population which, among other things, also affected the legal position of the widower . Apart from these considerations of Lhe preparatory materials, it was observed that the family was an essential element of the legal order . Having regard to all these circumstances, it could not be said that the regulation contained in the Carinthian Hereditary Fanns Act was not based on objective considerations and hence there was no reason to submit the maner to the Constitutional Court . 10 . After the Supreme Court's above decision the European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Bom out of Wedlock entered into force for Austria with effect from 29 August 1980 (BGBI . No . 313/1980) . Its Article 9 provides that a child bom out of wedlock shall have Lhe same right of succession in the estate of its father and its mother and of a member of its father's or mother's family, as if it had been born in wedlock . Austria has ratified this provision with the reservation that it shall not apply to Lhe succession in the estate of Lhe father or his family . Basing himself on this new legal situation, the applicant again applied to the Supreme Court asking it to reconsider its earlier decision of 9 April 1980 . The Supreme Court, however, rejected this application as inadmissible, having regard t o
the binding effect of its earlier final decision and the absence of a legal possibility to reopen the procedure (decision of 6 October 1980) . 11 . The procedure of first instance was resumed in October 1981 . On 12 October 1981 a judicial settlement was reached between the applicant and his half brother whereby the applicant renounced any claims to taking over his mother's hereditary farm which would fall to his half brother . In mrn he was to obtain a certain part of the land which had been promised to him by his mother during her lifetime, but no other compensation . 12 . The judicial proceedings in the hereditary case were terminated on 31 December 1981 by the transfer (Einantwortung) of the whole farm into the property of the applicant's half brother . The implementation of the above judicial settlement was reserved to a subsequent agreement between the parties . This agreement was concluded between the applicant and his half brother on 26 May 1982 . 13 . The separation of the land thereby assigned to the applicant still required the approval of certain administrative authorities, including in particular the competent forestry authority, having regard to the provisions of the Carinthian Provincial Forestry Act, Prov . Law Gazette No . 77/1979 . Certain difficulties arose in this respect because the land in question, which consisted of forest, was not sufficiently large . Its separation was therefore inadmissible under the above Act except in the case of a predominant public interest the existence of which the authority denied . The difficulties were apparently overcome after the Constitutional Court had in a different case found the relevant provisions of the Carinthian Forestry Act to be unconstitutional . The land was then ascribed to the applicant in the official land register . This has been confirmed in an extract from the land register of 13 January 1984 .
Complaints I . The applicant complains in the first place that he has been discriminated against on account of his illegitimate birth in the enjoyment of the property rights which he had acquired by way of inheritance from his mother (Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article I of Protocol No . I to the Convention) . While under the civil law he had a right to an equal share in his mother's inheritance, he could not take over her hereditary farm because of the application of s . 7(2) of the Carinthian Hereditary Farms Act whereby precedence is given in this respect to legitimate children, in this case his younger half brother . As the ceding heir he had only a right to be paid a financial compensation, but this, he submits, was not to be calculated in such a way that it corresponded to the value of the farm . Even though in the end he obtained some land of his mother's estate by way of a judicial settlement, he claims that he still suffered a disadvantage . He therefore maintains his complaint in this respect despite the judicial settlement in question .
2 . The applicant further complains that the lengih of the inheritance proceedings in his case, i .e . proceedings determining his civil rights and obligations, exceeded a reasonable time as required by Article 6 para . I of the Convention . He further submits in this context that no remedy was available to him on the domestic level to speed up the proceedings except a hierarchical appeal under s . 78 of the Act on the Organisation of Courts of Law, a remedy which in his view does not meet the requirements of an effective remedy in the sense of Article 13 of the Convention . He did in fact lodge a hierarchical appeal, but it was rejected by the President of the Regional Court of Klagenfun on 26 July 1978 . His lawyer also repeatedly urged an early decision of the court in view of the consequences which the long delay in the proceedings had for the orderly running of the farm which was not ensured pending the designation of the principal heir . However, all these motions were of no avail and it took the court more than seven years after his mother's death before this issue was settled .
THE LAW The applicant complains first of all that he was discriminated against on account 1. of his illegitimate birth in the enjoyment of the property rights which he acquired by way of inheritance from his mother who had owned a hereditary farm . He claims that in the realisation of his share of the estate he wa .s treated worse than his half brother because the Hereditary Farms Act designated the latter as the principal heir entitled to take over the farm while he himself, as a ceding heir, could get only a monetary compensation calculated in an unfavourable manner . In reality, his share therefore did not correspond to the value of his half brother's share although it was meant to represent the same fraction of the estate . The applicant invokes Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No . I to the Convention . 2 . The Commission has first examined whether the applicant can still claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention, after a setUement has been reached and put into operation on the domestic level . By this settlement, the applicant got a piece of land from his mother's estate instead of the financial compensation to which he would otherwise have been entitled . Although the farm thus did not remain undivided as stipulated by the Hereditary Farms Act, there was nevertheless no equal division of the estate . The applicant claims that he suffered a disadvantage because he could conclude the above settlement only on the basis of the existing law according to which his half brother had been designated as the principal heir and he himself as the ceding heir . The Commission notes that the settlement in fact left the applicability of the Hereditary Farms Act, and especially the legal assignment of the respective roles of principal and ceding heir, unaffected . As the ceding heir, the applicant was in a wea k
position in the settlement negotiations . The settlement was concluded between private parties . Although it required approval by the competent court and certain administrative bodies, these authorities were bound by the existing law and could make no concessions to the applicant with regard to his specific complaints which were directed against the state of the law itself . This element distinguishes the present case from Application No . 6504/74 (Preikhzas v . the Federal Republic of Germany, Comm . Report 13 .12 .78, D .R . 16 p . 5) where the Commission found that a person can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his Convention rights if he has obtained adequate redress for his complaints by a settlement concluded on the domestic level with the competent authorities . As the applicant did not obtain such redress by the settlement concluded with his half brother, he can still claim to be a victim insofar as he alleges that the legislation underlying this settlement is contrary to the Convention . 3 . As regards the conformity of this legislation with the requirements of the Convention, the applicant has clearly exhausted all domestic remedies available to him because he raised this specific issue in the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Court . The applicant's complaint therefore cannot be rejected under Article 27 para . 3 of the Convention . The Commission is accordingly required to deal with the substance of the complaint . 4 . The Government have objected that this complaint is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention because the right to acquire property by way of inheritance is not covered by Article I of Protocol No I and consequently also Anicle 14 of the Convention would not be applicable . It is true that in the Marckx case the European Court of Human Rights denied the applicability of Article I in respect of the illegitimate child's right to inherit from the mother (judgment of 13 June 1979, para 50) . However, that case related to a potential right to inherit in the future whereas the present case concerns the position of a person who has already acquired a right of inheritance in respect of a certain share of his mother's estate . The Commission considers that this latter right must be considered as a property right within the meaning of Article I of the Protocol even before the respective parts of the estate are assigned to the individual heirs . Article I of the Protocol is therefore applicable . It follows that Article 14 of the Convention also applies . 5 . The system established by the Hereditary Farms Act whereby a farm cannot be divided in inheritance proceedings manifestly serves the public interest to maintain viable farms . It is an inherent feature of this system that only one heir can take over the farm whereas the other heirs' shares must be paid out in the form of a financial compensation . It is further inevitable for achieving the basic aim of the legislation that the financial compensation to be paid to the ceding heirs must be calculated in such a manner that it does not encroach on the viability of the farm . The Commission is of the opinion that the relevant regulations can be considered a s
"necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest", and that they are therefore as such covered by the second paragraph of Article I of Protocol No . I . The fact that.6 the system inevitably involves differential treatment as betwee n the principal heir and the ceding heirs with regard to the realisation of their respective shares and thus the actual scope of their property rights does not, however, necessarily exclude the possibility of discrimination in the choice of the principal heir . In order to be in line with the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention the criteria applied in this respect must be based on reasonable and objective considerations . As Article 14 expressly prohibits discrimination on the ground of birth, the Commission considers that it is faced with an important question of principle as to the interpretation and application of Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article I of the Protocol, which requires to be detertnined on the merits . The applicant's complaint in this respect cannot therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention . 7 . The applicant has further complained that his civil rights and obligations have not been determined within reasonable time as required by Article 6 para . I of the Convention, and that he did not dispose of effective domestic remedies in order to secure the acceleration of these proceedings (Article 13 of the Convention) . The Commission notes, however, that the applicant has withdrawn these complaints concerning the period prior to 29 August 1980 when Austria ratified the European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Bom Out of Wedlock . As regards the subsequent period, the Commission considers that the above complaints have lost their object by the settlement concluded by the applicant with his half brother since this settlement made it unnecessary for the court to determine the applicant's civil rights by a judicial decision . The Commission therefore is not required to deal with these complaints For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case, the applicant's complaint that he has been discriminated against contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in the enjoyment of his property ri ghts as guaranteed by Article I of the Protocol No . I to the Convention ;
(lRADUCT/ON) EN FAI T Les faits de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : 1 . Le requÃ©rant, de nationalitÃ© autrichienne, est nÃ© en 1942 ; il est enfant naturel . 11 habite Stallhofen en Carinthie et est reprÃ©sentÃ© par Me Heinz Walther, avocat Ã Klagenfurt . 2 . La mÃ¨re du requÃ©rant, qui possÃ©dait une exploitation agricole Ã St BartlmÃ en Carinthie, est dÃ©cÃ©dÃ©e en 1975, laissant comme hÃ©ritiers, outre le requÃ©rant, son mari et son second fils, enfant lÃ©gitime nÃ© en 1975 . Selon le code civil, le conjoint survivant avait droit au quart de la succession et chacun des fils (lÃ©gitime ou non) aux trois huitiÃ©mes de celle-ci . Le requÃ©rant, son beau-pÃ©re et son demi-frÃ¨re ont dÃ©clarÃ© qu'ils acceptaient la succession et sa division et le tribunal de district de Klagenfurt le 31 mars 1976 a jugÃ© valables ces dÃ©clarations d'acceptation . 3 . L'exploilation agricole en question tombait toutefois sous le coup des dispositions particuliÃ¨res de la lÃ©gislation provinciale de Carinthie (loi relative aux exploitations agricoles hÃ©rÃ©ditaires, â¢ErbhÃ¼fegesetz . - Joumal officiel provincial NÂ° 33/ 1903), qui prÃ©voient que les exploitations agricoles ne peuvent Ãªtre divisÃ©es Ã l'occasion de la liquidation d'une succession et qu'elles doivent Ã©tre attribuÃ©es Ã un seul des hÃ©ritiers, Ã charge pour ce demier de verser une soulte aux cohÃ©ritiers . Sans prÃ©judice des dispositions gÃ©nÃ©rales du Code civil rÃ©gissant la dÃ©volution de la succession, cette loi fixe ainsi les rÃ¨gles de rÃ©partition des biens et institue Ã cet effet un ordre de succession pour l'attribution des exploitations agricoles . D'une maniÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©rale, l'aPnÃ© a le pas sur le cadet et, aux termes de l'article 7 par . 2 de la loi, l'enfant lÃ©gitime sur l'enfant naturel . La loi exclut aussi du bÃ©nÃ©fice de cette disposition certains hÃ©ritiers, notarrunent ceux qui sont incapables d'assumer eux-mÃªmes la bonne marche de l'exploitation, en raison de dÃ©ficiences physiques ou mentales (article 7 par . 4 b)) ou de leurs obligations professionnelles (article 7 par . 4 d)) .
4 . Le requÃ©rant a soutenu en l'espÃ¨ce qu'en sa qualit6 de fils aÃ®nÃ© il devait Ãªtre appelÃ© Ã prendre la succession de sa mÃ©re Ã la tÃªte de l'exploitation . Il a fait valoir que la disposition donnant la prÃ©sÃ©ance aux enfants lÃ©gitimes avait Ã©tÃ© abrogÃ©e entretemps et qu'en tout Ã©tat de cause, son demi-frÃ¨re 8tait exclu de cette succession en raison de son inaptitude Ã assumer la bonne marche de l'exploitation . La question a Ã©t8 soumise au tribunal qui, le 28 avril 1976, a tenu une audience en prÃ©sence des parties et le 26 aoÃ»t 1976 a chargÃ© un expert de formuler un avis sur la question de savoir si la ferme Ã©tait une Â« exploitation agricole hÃ©rÃ©ditaire . au sens de la loi provinciale, quelle Ã©tait sa valeur (cette Ã©valuation Ã©tant nÃ©cessaire pour fixer le montant des soultes) et quelles Ã©taient les conditions de son exploitation depuis le dÃ©cÃ¨s de la mÃ¨re du requÃ©rant .
Le rapport de l'expert, datÃ© du 1^' octobre 1986, a Ã©tÃ© soumis au tribunal le 27 octobre . L'expert arrivait Ã la conclusion que l'exploitation entrait dans le champ d'application de la loi provinciale et que sa valeur s'Ã©levait Ã 331 .040 schillings autrichiens . Elle Ã© tait en trÃ©s mauvais Ã© tat et ne pouvait faire vivre une famille . C'est le conjoint su rvivant qui pour l'essentiel s'en Ã©tait occupÃ© depuis la mort du de cujus ; il n'Ã©levait que quelques bÃªtes et utilisait l'ensemble des terres comme paturages . Les prai ries Ã©taient en partie Ã l'abandon et les champs en friche . Le t ri bunal a tenu une audience le 18 janvier 1977 aux fins de dÃ©terminer si l'exploitation Ã© tait une Â«exploitation agricole hÃ©rÃ©ditaireâ¢ . Par une dÃ©cision du 25 janvier 1977, devenue depuis lors dÃ©finitive, il a estimÃ© que tel Ã©tait bien le cas et, entÃ©rinant les conclusions de l'expe rt , il a fixÃ© Ã 331 .040 schillings aut richiens la valeur de la propriÃ©tÃ© . 5 . ConformÃ©ment Ã l'article 7 par . 4 de la loi provinciale, le tribunal rÃ©gional de Klagenfurt a Ã©tÃ© saisi de la question de l'attribution de l'exploitation et de l'expulsion, demandÃ©e par le requÃ©rant, du demi-frÃ¨re de celui-ci . Le t ri bunal de district a transmis son dossier au tribunal rÃ©gional le 20 juillet 1977 . L'audience prÃ©vue pour le 16 janvier 1978 ayant Ã©tÃ© annulÃ©e, le tribunal rÃ©gional a renvoyÃ© le dossier le 17 janvier 1978 au t ri bunal de dist rict en lui demandant de recueillir des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve complÃ©mentaires sur l'aptitude du demi-frÃ¨re Ã assurer la bonne m arche de l'exploitation . L'avis de l'expert devait Ã¨tre complÃ©tÃ© sur ce point et le t ri bunal de dist ri ct a Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã joindre au dossier son propre avis en droit (ainsi que l'exige l'article 7 par . 4 de la loi) . 6 . Le tribunal de district ayant ordonnÃ© un complÃ©ment d'expertise, l'expert a remis ses nouvelles conclusions le 6 avril 1978 . ll concluait Ã une nouvelle dÃ©gradation des conditions d'exploitation de la ferme . Certaines terres avaient Ã©tÃ© laissÃ©es Ã la disposition d'un club de motocross, d'autres Ã celle d'un voisin qui y avait entreposÃ© des matÃ©riaux de construction . On ne pouvait donc guÃ¨re parler, Ã ce momentlÃ , d'exploitation dans les rÃ¨gles . A la question de savoir si le demi-frÃ¨re du requÃ©rant Ã©tait capable d'assurer la bonne merche de l'exploitation tout en continuant Ã exercer son emploi de mano.uvre, l'expert rÃ©pondait par l'affirmative . Le travail nÃ©cessaire pour assurer la bonne marche de l'exploitation n'Ã©tait pas trÃ¨s considÃ©rable et le lieu de travail de l'intÃ©ressÃ© n'Ã©tait pas Ã©loignÃ© au point d'empÃ©cher sa prÃ©sence quotidienne Ã la ferme . AprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© remise Ã plusieurs reprises, l'audition des parties par le tribunal de district a eu lieu finalement le 31 janvier 1979 . Le tribunal a constatÃ© Ã cette occasion que les parties n'Ã©taient pas d'accord sur la personne qui devait reprendre l'exploitation, ne fÃ»t-ce qu'en attendant l'issue de la procÃ©dure . Le beau-pÃ¨re et le demi-frÃ¨re du requÃ©rant s'opposaient Ã la dÃ©signation d'un curateur .
7 . Le tribunal de district a soumis une nouvelle fois le dossier au tribunal rÃ©gional fin fÃ©vrier 1979 . Le 25 juin 1979 celui-ci a dÃ©clarÃ© irrecevable la demande du requÃ©rant visant Ã obtenir que son beau-pÃ¨re fÃ»t dÃ©clarÃ© inapte Ã reprendre l'exploitation . En fait, celui-ci n'avait jamais prÃ©tendu Ãªtre habilitÃ© Ã le faire . Quant au demi-frÃ¨re du requÃ©rant, le tribunal a estimÃ© que l'exercice de sa profession ne l'empÃ©chait pas d'assurer la bonne marche de l'exploitation et qu'il ne se trouvait pas dans l'incapacitÃ© de s'acquitter de cette tÃ¢che tout en conservant son emploi . Il ne pouvait @tre tenu pour responsable de la mauvaise gestion de l'exploitation depuis la mort de sa mÃ¨re puisque celle-ci avait Ã©tÃ© assurÃ©e par son pÃ¨re . Le requÃ©rant fit appel de cette dÃ©cision devant la.8 cour d'appel de Graz faisan t valoir qu'en se prononÃ§ant contre l'exclusion de son demi-frÃ¨re, le tribunal rÃ©gional n'avait pas tenu compte de certains Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve . Il soutenait par ailleurs que les dispositions de l'article 7 par . 2 de la loi provinciale donnant la prÃ©sÃ©ance aux enfants lÃ©gitimes avaient Ã©tÃ© abrogÃ©es par la nouvelle version de l'article 754 par . I du Code civil promulguÃ©e en 1970 (Joumal officiel de la RÃ©publique fÃ©dÃ©rale d'Autriche No 342) (â¢) et par l'article 14 de la Convention europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme . Il demanda Ã la cour de soumettre la question de la constitutionnalitÃ© de la disposition en cause Ã la Cour constitutionnelle . La cour d'appel a cependant dÃ©boutÃ© le requÃ©rant le 26 septembre 1979 en confirmant la dÃ©cision du tribunal rÃ©gional sur la non-exclusion du demi-frÃ¨re du requÃ©rant et en prÃ©cisant qu'elle n'avait aucun doute quant Ã la constitutionnalitÃ© de la disposition de la loi provinciale qui donnait la prÃ©sÃ©ance aux enfants lÃ©gitimes . Une telle disposition trouvait sa raison d'Ã©tre dans la spÃ©cificitÃ© de la structure Ã©conomique et de la famille rurales : les enfants lÃ©gitimes vivent en famille Ã la fertne alors qu'il n'est pas rare que les enfants naturels soient Ã©levÃ©s ailleurs et n'aient pas de ce fait des liens aussi Ã©troits avec l'exploitation que les enfants lÃ©gitimes . Tel Ã©tait le cas en l'espÃ¨ce . La cour d'appel ne voyait par consÃ©quent aucune raison de saisir la Cour constitutionnelle . 9 . Le requÃ©rant s'est pourvu en cassation auprÃ¨s de la Cour suprÃ©me en reprenant en substance les mÃªmes arguments que ceux qu'il avait invoquÃ©s devant la cour d'appel . Dans son arrÃ©l du 9 avril 1980, la Cour suprÃªme a toutefois jugÃ© le pourvoi irrecevable au motif qu'il Ã©tait dirigÃ© contre un arrÃªt de la cour d'appel qui confirmait une dÃ©cision du tribunal rÃ©gional . Elle a Ã©galement examinÃ© la question de savoir si l'article 7 par . 2 de la loi provinciale relative aux .exploitations agricoles hÃ©rÃ©ditaires Â» avait Ã©tÃ© abrogÃ© par le nouvel article 754 par . 1 du Code civil - Ã laquelle elle a rÃ©pondu par la nÃ©gative - ainsi que celle de la constitutionnalitÃ© de l'article 7 par . 2 au regard de l'article 14 de la Convention, Ã propos de laquelle elle a fait observer que celui-ci ne visait qu'Ã assurer lajouissance, sans distinction aucune, des â¢ Cei anicle dispose : â¢ Un enfant namrel a, en l'absence de testament. les m2mes dtuits qu'un enfant lÃ©gilime Ã la succession de sa m2rn . . . â¢
droits et libertÃ©s reconnus par la Convention . Or celle-ci ne traite pas de la succession et l'article I - du Protocole additionnel, qui garantit le respect des biens, n'exclut pas l'application, en matiÃ¨re de succession, de rÃ©gles diffÃ©rentes aux enfants lÃ©gitimes et aux enfants naturels . L'article 7 par . 2 de la loi provinciale Ã©tait donc sans conteste compatible avec le principe constitutionnel d'Ã©galitÃ© . Celui-ci interdit au lÃ©gislateur, sauf raisons objectives, d'introduire des distinctions en droit fondÃ©es sur la situation personnelle, saufjustification pour des raisons objectives . Les dispositions incriminÃ©es de la loi provinciale ne paraissent toutefois pas dÃ©raisonnables . Il existe des dispositions semblables dans la lÃ©gislation de la province du Tyro l Htifegesetz -) et dans la lÃ©gislation fÃ©dÃ©rale applicable dans les autres provinces (-Anerbengesetzâ¢), lesquelles sont mÃ¨me plus restrictives Ã l'endroit des enfants naturels, puisque ceux-ci ne pouvaient se voir attribuer l'exploitation familiale que s'ils y avaient Ã©tÃ© Ã©levÃ©s . Les travaux prÃ©paratoires de cette lÃ©gislation montrent que la prÃ©sÃ©ance des enfants lÃ©gitimes sur les enfants naturels se fonde sur les convictions de la sociÃ©tÃ© rurale . Cette rÃ©glementation n'Ã©tait pas non plus remise en cause par la tendance visant Ã assimiler la situation juridique de l'enfant naturel Ã celle de l'enfant lÃ©gitime car elle traduisait les convictions et attitudes spÃ©cifiques Ã la population rurale, qui concernent Ã©galement, entre autres choses, la situation juridique du conjoint survivant . lndÃ©pendamment de ces considÃ©rations relatives aux travaux prÃ©paratoires, la cour a fait observer que la famille est un Ã©lÃ©ment essentiel de l'ordre juridique . Compte tenu de toutes ces circonstances, on ne pouvait pas soutenir que les dispositions de la loi provinciale ne reposaient pas sur des considÃ©rations objectives et il n'y avait donc pas lieu de saisir la Cour constitutionnelle . 10 . La Convention europÃ©enne relative au statut juridique des enfants nÃ©s hors mariage est entrÃ©e en vigueur en Autriche le 29 ao0t 1980 (BGBI . No 313/1980), soit aprÃ¨s que la Cour suprÃªme avait rendu l'arTÃ©t susmentionnÃ© . Son article 9 stipule que les droits de l'enfant nÃ© hors mariage dans la succession de ses pÃ¨re et mÃ¨re et des membres de leur famille sont les mÃªmes que s'il Ã©tait nÃ© dans le mariage . En ratifiant cette disposition, l'Autriche a formulÃ© une rÃ©serve, Ã savoir qu'elle ne s'applique pas Ã la succession du pÃ¨re et de sa famille . Se fondant sur ce nouvel Ã©tat du droit, le requÃ©rant a introduit un deuxiÃ¨me recours auprÃ©s de la Cour suprÃªme, lui demandant de reconsidÃ©rer son arrÃªt du 9 avril 1980 . La Cour suprÃªme a toutefois dÃ©clarÃ© cette demande irrecevable au motif que son arrÃ¨t Ã©tait devenu dÃ©ftnitif et qu'il n'existait pas de possibilitÃ© lÃ©gale de rouvrir la procÃ©dure (arrÃ¨t du 6 octobre 1980) . 11 . La procÃ©dure a repris en premiÃ¨re instance en octobre 1981 . Un arrangement judiciaire est intervenu le 12 octobre 1 981 entre le requÃ©rant et son demi-frÃ¨re, par lequel le requÃ©rant renonÃ§ait Ã toute prÃ©tention sur la ferme de sa mÃ¨re, qui revenait Ã son demi-frÃ¨re . Il recevait les terres que lui avait promises sa mÃre de son vivant mais aucune autre indemnisation .
12 . La procÃ©dure judiciaire a p ri s fin le 31 dÃ©cembre 1981 par l'envoi en possession du demi-frÃ©re du requÃ©rant (Einantwo rtung) . L'application de l'arrangement judiciaire prÃ©citÃ© Ã©tait renvoyÃ©e Ã un accord ultÃ©rieur des parties . Cet accord a Ã©tÃ© conclu le 26 mai 1982 par le requÃ©rant et son beau-frÃ¨re . 13 . Aux termes de la loi de la province de Carinthie sur les forÃªts (Journal officiel provincial No 77/1979), la sÃ©paration des terres revenant au requÃ©rant en ve rtu de cet accord supposait l'aval des pouvoirs publics et, en pa rt iculier, du service compÃ©tent des forÃªts . Des difficultÃ©s ont surgi Ã ce propos car les terres en question, boisÃ©es, n'Ã©taient pas suffisamment importantes . Leur sÃ©paration Ã©tait de ce fait impossible aux termes de la loi prÃ©citÃ©e si ce n'est pour des considÃ©rations d'intÃ©rÃ©t public, que les pouvoirs publics rÃ©cusaient en l'espÃ©ce . Un arrÃªt de la Cou i constitutionnelle ayant prononcÃ©, Ã propos d'une autre affaire, l'inconstitutionnalitÃ© des dispositions lÃ©gales pertinentes de la loi de Carinthie sur les forÃªts a permis, semble-t-il, de surmonter ces difftcultÃ©s . Les terres ont Ã©tÃ© inscrites au livre foncier sous le nom du requÃ©rant, ce que confirme un extrait du livre foncier en date du 13 janvier 1984 .
GRIEFS 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint en premier lieu d'avoir Ã©tÃ© victime d'une discrimination, fondÃ©e sur sa naissance illÃ©gitime, dans la jouissance des droits de propriÃ©tÃ© qu'il tenait de sa mÃ¨re (article 14 de la Convention combinÃ© avec l'article lef du Protocole additionnel) . Alors qu'aux termes du Code civil, il avait des droits Ã© gaux Ã la succession de sa mÃ¨re, il n'a pu obtenir que lui soit attribuÃ©e la ferme ayant appartenu Ã sa mÃ¨re en raison de l'application de l'article 7 par . 2 de la loi de la province de Carinthie sur les -exploitations agricoles hÃ©rÃ©ditaires â¢, qui donnait la prÃ©sÃ©ance en la matiÃ¨re aux enfants lÃ©gitimes, en l'occurrence Ã son demi-frÃ¨re cadet . En tant qu'hÃ©ritier cÃ©dant il n'avait droit qu'Ã une soulte mais celle-ci, soutient-il, ne devait pas @tre calculÃ©e de faÃ§on qu'elle correspondPt Ã la valeur de la fertne . Bien qu'il ait obtenu en fin de compte une parcelle de la succession de sa mÃ¨re par voie d'arrangement judiciaire, il prÃ©tend avoir subi un prÃ©judice . Aussi maintient-il son grief Ã cet Ã©gard, en dÃ©pit de l'arrangement judiciaire en question . 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galement de la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure de partage, en d'autres tertnes, la procÃ©dure fixant ses droits et obligations civils, qui a excÃ©dÃ© un dÃ©lai raisonnable, contrairement aux dispositions de l'article 6 par . 1 de laConvention . 11 fail valoir aussi dans cet ordre d'idÃ©es que . hortnis le recours hiÃ©rarchique prÃ©vu par l'article 78 de la loi sur l'organisation des tribunaux qui, Ã son avis, n'est pas un recours effectif au sens de l'article 13 de la Convention, il n'existait pas dans l'ordre inteme de voies de recours susceptibles d'accÃ©lÃ©rer la procÃ©dure dont il p Ã» t faire usage . Il avait en fait introduit un recours hiÃ©rarchique mais celui-ci avait Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ© par le prÃ©sident du tribunal rÃ©gional de Klagenfurt le 26juillet 1978 . Son avocat avait de son cÃ´tÃ© demandÃ© Ã plusieurs reprises au tribunal de statuer sans dÃ©lai, compte tenu des consÃ©quences de la longueur de la procÃ©dure pour la bonne march e
de l'exploitation, qui n'Ã©tait pas assurÃ©e dans l'attente de la dÃ©signation de l'hÃ©ritier principal . Cependant, toutes ces dÃ©marches n'ont servi Ã rien et l'affaire n'a trouvÃ© son Ã©pilogue que plus de sept ans aprÃ¨s la mort de la mÃ¨re du requÃ©rant .
EN DROI T I . Le requÃ©rant se plaint en premier lieu d'avoir Ã©tÃ© victime d'une discrimination fondÃ©e sur sa naissance illÃ©gitime dÃ ns la jouissance des droits de propriÃ©tÃ© dont il hÃ©ritait de sa mÃ¨re, propriÃ©taire d'une exploitation agricole hÃ©rÃ©ditaire . Il soutient qu'Ã l'occasion du partage, il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©savantagÃ© par rappon Ã son demi-frÃ¨re, hÃ©ritier principal aux termes de la loi sur les exploitations agricoles hÃ©rÃ©ditaires et habilitÃ© Ã ce titre Ã reprendre la ferme alors que lui-mÃ©me devait en tant qu'hÃ©ritier cÃ©dant se contenter d'une soulte calculÃ©e d'unemaniÃ¨re dÃ©favorable . Sa part ne correspondait donc pas en fait Ã celle de son demi-frÃ¨re, bien qu'elle ftlt censÃ©e reprÃ©senter la mÃ©me fraction de la succession . Il invoque l'article 14 de la Convention combinÃ© avec l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel . 2 . La Commission a d'abord examinÃ© la question de savoir si le requÃ©rant peut encore prÃ©tendre Ãªtre victime, au sens de l'article 25 de la Convention, aprÃ¨s l'arrangement conlu et mis en Åuvre dans le cadre inteme . Aux termes de cet arrangement, le requÃ©rant a reÃ§u des terres en lieu et place de la soulte Ã laquelle il aurait, sinon, eu droit . Bien que l'exploitation ne soit donc pas restÃ©e intacte, contrairement aux dispositions de la loi sur les exploitations familiales hÃ©rÃ©ditaires, le partage n'a pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©gal . Le requÃ©rant soutient qu'il a subi un prÃ©judice du fait qu'il n'a pu conclure l'arrangement que sur la base de la loi en vigueur, en vertu de laquelle son demi-frÃ¨re a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©signÃ© comme hÃ©ritier principal et lui-mÃªme comme hÃ©ritier cÃ©dant . La Commission note que, de fait, l'arrangement n'a pas mis en cause l'applicabilitÃ© de la loi sur les exploitations familiales hÃ©rÃ©ditaires et en particulier les rdgles lÃ©gales sur les positions respectives d'hÃ©ritier principal et d'hÃ©ritier cÃ©dant. HÃ©ritier cÃ©dant, le requÃ©rant se trouvait en position de faiblesse dans les nÃ©gociations . L'arrangement Ã©tait une convention passÃ©e entre particuliers . B devait certes recevoir l'aval du tribunal compÃ©tent et de certains organes administratifs mais ceux-ci Ã©taient liÃ©s par la loi en vigueur et ne pouvaient faire droit aux griefs du requÃ©rant qui mettaient en cause l'Ã©tat du droit lui-mÃªme . C'est ce qui distingue la prÃ©sente affaire de la requÃªte No 6504/74 (Preikhzas c/RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, D . R . 16 p . 5) Ã propos de laquelle la Commission a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'une personne ne peut plus se prÃ©tendre victime d'une violation des droits garantis par la Convention si, par un arrangement conclu dans le cadre interne avec les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes, elle a obtenu une juste rÃ©paration . Faute d'avoir obtenu une telle rÃ©paration par l'arrangement conclu avec son demi-frÃ¨re, le requÃ©rant peut encore se prÃ©tendre victinie en arguant du fait que la loi sur laquelle s'appuie l'arrangement est contraire Ã la Convention .
3 . S'agissant de la conformitÃ© de cette loi avec les exigences de la Convention, le requÃ©rant a manifestement Ã© puisÃ© toutes les voies de recours internes puisqu'il a soulevÃ© ce point dans son recours Ã la Cour suprÃ¨me . La requÃ¨te ne peut donc Ã©tre rejetÃ©e en vertu de l'anicle 27 par. 3 de la Convention . La Commission est par consÃ©quent appelÃ©e Ã l'examiner au fond . 4 . Le Gouvernement a fait valoir que la requÃ©te Ã©tait incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention puisque le droit d'acquÃ© ri r des biens par voie de succession n'entre pas dans le champ d'application de l'article 1Â°' du Protocole additionnel et que, par voie de consÃ©quence, l'article 14 de la Convention n'est pas non plus applicable . Il est vrai que, dans l'affaire Marckx, la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme a Ã© ca rtÃ© l'application de l'a rt icle 1Â°' s'agissant du droit de l'enfant naturel Ã hÃ©riter de sa niÃ¨re (arrÃªt du 13 juin 1979, par . 50) . Cependant, l'affaire Marckx portait sur un droit Ã hÃ©riter Ã l'avenir, alors que la prÃ©sente affaire conce rn e la situation d'une personne qui a d'ores et dÃ©jÃ un droit sur la succession de sa mÃ¨re . La Commission estime qu'il faut considÃ©rer ce droit comme un droit de propriÃ©tÃ©, au sens de l'article 1Â° 1 du Protocole additionnel avant mÃªme la rÃ©pa rt ition des biens entre les diffÃ©rents hÃ©ritiers . L'article IÂ°' du Protocole additionnel est de ce fait applicable comme l'est, par voie de consÃ©quence, l'article 14 de la Convention . 5 . Les dispositions de la loi sur les exploitations agricoles hÃ©rÃ©ditaires interdisant le partage des exploitations agricoles Ã l'occasion de la liquidation d'une succession sont conformes Ã l'intÃ©rÃ©t public qui impose de prÃ©server la viabilitÃ© de ces exploitations . Il est inhÃ©rent au systÃ¨me que la ferme doit Ã¨ tre attribuÃ©e Ã l'un des hÃ© ri tiers, la part des autres consistant en une soulte . II est inÃ©vitable, compte tenu de l'objectif fondamental de la loi, que la soulte soit calculÃ©e de maniÃ¨re Ã ne pas compromettre la viabilitÃ© de l'exploitation . La Commission estime que les dispositions en cause peuvent Ã¨tre considÃ©rÃ©es comme â¢ nÃ©cessaires pour rÃ©glementer l'usage des biens conformÃ©ment Ã l'intÃ©rÃªt gÃ©nÃ©ral - et qu'elles sont par consÃ©quent autorisÃ©es par l'article 1 par . 2 du Protocole additionnel . 6 . De ce que le systÃ¨me implique inÃ©vitablement une diffÃ©rence de traitement entre l'hÃ©ritier principal et les hÃ©ritiers cÃ©dants, diffÃ©rence qui se marque Ã leurs parts respectives et, partant, Ã l'Ã©tendue rÃ©elle de leurs droits de propriÃ©tÃ©, on ne saurait conclure nÃ©cessairement Ã l'absence de discrimination dans le choix de l'hÃ©ritier principal . Pour rÃ©pondre aux exigences de l'article 14 de la Convention, les critÃ¨res appliquÃ©s en la circonstance doivent reposer sur des considÃ©rations lÃ©gitintes et objectives . L'article 14 de la Convention interdisant expressÃ©ment toute distinction fondÃ©e sur la naissance, la Commission considÃ¨re qu'elle est confrontÃ©e Ã une importante question de principe, celle de l'interprÃ©tation et de l'application de l'article 14 de la Convention combinÃ© avec l'art icle 1 par . 2 du Protocole additionnel, question qui exige un examen au fond . La requÃªte ne peut Ã cet Ã©gard Ã©tre rejetÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention . -41-
7 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galement de ce qu'il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© statuÃ© dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable sur ses droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil, ainsi que l'exige l'article 6 par . 1 de la Convention, et de ce qu'il ne disposait pas de recours internes effectifs pour accÃ©lÃ©rer la procÃ©dure (article 13 de la Convention) . La Commission relÃ¨ve toutefois que le requÃ©rant a retirÃ© sa plainte pour ce qui est de la pÃ©riode antÃ©rieure au 29 aotlt 1980, date Ã laquelle l'Autriche a ratifiÃ© la Convention europÃ©enne sur le statut juridique des enfants nÃ©s hors mariage . S'agissant de la pÃ©riode ultÃ©rieure, la Commission considÃ¨re que les griefs exposÃ©s plus haut ont perdu leur raison d'Ãªtre du fait de l'arrangement conclu par le requÃ©rant avec son demi-frÃ¨re, arrangement qui rend inutile toute dÃ©cision judiciaire concernant les droits civils du requÃ©rant .
La Commission n'est de ce fait pas appelÃ©e Ã examiner ces griefs . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE RECEVABLE, tous moyens de fond Ã©tant rÃ©se rvÃ©s, le grief formulÃ© par le requÃ©rant selon lequel il aurait fait l'objet d'une discrimination contraire aux dispositions de l'article 14 de la Convention dans la jouissance de ses droits de prop riÃ©tÃ© tels qu'ils sont garantis par l'article 1â¢' du Protocole additionnel Ã la Convention ; DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE IRRECEVABLE pour le surplus .
-42-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 05/12/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page