CASE OF FABRIS v. FRANCE
Hearing: Fabris v. France (no. 16574/08) Article 41 - Just satisfaction (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-04-04 00:00:00)
Application no.: 16574/08
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2013-02-07 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0207JUD001657408
Respondent state: FRA
Articles of the Convention: 14;14+P1-1;41;46;46-1;46-2;P1-1;P1-1-1
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Karel Jungwiert;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
Represented by: OTTAN A.
Issue: Section 25(2) of the 2001 Law ; Articles 1077-1 and 1077-2 of the Civil Code
Strasbourg case-law cited: Alboize-Barthes and Alboize-Montezume v. France (dec.), no 44421/04, 21 October 2008;Albu and Others v. Romania, no 34796/09 et seq., § 34, 10 May 2012;Ališic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (dec.), no 60642/08, § 52, 17 October 2011;Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no 55707/00, ECHR 2009;Antoni v. the Czech Republic, no 18010/06, 25 November 2010;Association nationale des pupilles de la Nation v. France (dec.), no 22718/08, 6 October 2009;Beian v. Romania (no 1), no 30658/05, § 39, ECHR 2007-V (extracts);Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000-I;Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfi v. Turkey, nos. 37639/03, 37655/03, 26736/04 and 42670/04, § 41, 3 March 2009;Brauer v. Germany, no 3545/04, 28 May 2009;Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII;Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no 28369/95, ECHR 2000-X;Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz v. France, no 29613/08, § 18, 21 December 2010;Depalle v. France [GC], no 34044/02, ECHR 2010;Di Marco v. Italy (merits), no 32521/05, § 50, 26 April 2011;E.S. v. France (dec.), no 49714/06, 10 February 2009;Inze v. Austria, 28 October 1987, Series A no 126;Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, Series A no 112;Karaman v. Turkey, no 6489/03, § 30, 15 January 2008;Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no 30078/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no 44912/98, ECHR 2004-IX;Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no 29515/95, §§ 30-31, ECHR 1999-I;Magnin v. France (dec.), no 26219/08, 10 May 2012;Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII;Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no 31;Mazurek v. France, no 34406/97, 1 February 2000, ECHR 2000-II;Merger and Cros v. France, no 68864/01, 22 December 2004;Mork v. Germany, nos. 31047/04 and 43386/08, §§ 28 to 30 and 54, 9 June 2011;Nejdet Sahin and Perihan Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no 13279/05, §§ 56-57, 20 October 2011;Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, no 42295/98, § 43, ECHR 2002-VIII;Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 24, Series A no 257-B;Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 22, Reports 1998-II;Pla and Puncernau v. Andorra, no 69498/01, ECHR 2004-VIII;Plalam S.P.A. v. Italy (merits), no 16021/02, § 37, 18 May 2010;Pressos Companía Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no 332;Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no 42527/98, § 85, ECHR 2001-VIII;Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no 18768/05, § 103, 27 May 2010;Salah v. the Netherlands, no 8196/02, § 77, ECHR 2006-IX (extracts);Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II (extracts);Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 55, ECHR 2005-X;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, §§ 51 and 52, ECHR 2006-VI;Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no 44277/98, § 32, 24 June 2003;Taron v. Germany (dec.), no 53126/07, 29 May 2012;Van Raalte v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I;Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no 2) [GC], no 32772/02, § 61, ECHR 2009;Vermeire v. Belgium, 29 November 1991, Series A no 214-C;Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, no 76240/01, § 96, 28 June 2007;Zarb Adami v. Malta, no 17209/02, § 42, ECHR 2006-VIII
Conclusion: Violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property);Just satisfaction reserved
Separate opinion: TRUE