Affiliation- and inheritance-related rights
III. Both parties agree that it is the contents of the will that determine the testatrix ’ s intention at the time of making it, so that the will has to be interpreted in accordance with that intention, which is to be inferred from the words used in the will ( Digest 50, 16, 219). Since 1941 it has been apparent from the case-law of the Andorran courts (judgment of the Judge of Appeals dated 3 February 1941) that ‘ on both a partially intestate and a testate succession it is principally the testator ’ s intention that must be taken into account, as can be inferred from many provisions of Roman and canon law ... ’ V. It is apparent from the foregoing that, although the law in force when the child was actually adopted allowed adopted children to inherit from their adoptive parents on an intestate succession (code 8, 48, 10), those rights cannot extend to a testate succession, where the main factor is the testator ’ s intention. Accordingly, any doubt as to the scope of the expression ‘ offspring of a lawful and canonical marriage ’ falls away when the testatrix ’ s intention is analysed in the light of the social, family and legal conditions in which she lived. In the present case, nothing militates in favour of including the life tenant ’ s adopted children, given the minimal impact of adoption on Andorran family and inheritance law, the adopted child ’ s status as the adoptive parents ’ child (son) but not as a member of the parents ’ family, the purpose traditionally ascribed to family settlements under Catalan law, and Catalan and Andorran legal tradition.” D. Application to the High Court of Justice of Andorra to have the proceedings set aside on grounds of nullity 19. The applicants lodged an application with the High Court of Justice to have the proceedings set aside. They submitted that the latter had breached the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 6 of the Andorran Constitution and that they had breached Article 10 (right to judicial protection and to a fair trial) of the Andorran Constitution. In a decision of 28 June 2000, the High Court of Justice dismissed their application as ill-founded. E. Appeal ( recurso de empara ) before the Constitutional Court 20. The applicants lodged an empara appeal with the Constitutional Court against the decisions of the High Court of Justice. They alleged a violation of Article 13 § 3 (principle of children ’ s equality before the law regardless of filiation) and Article 10 (right to judicial protection and a fair trial) of the Andorran Constitution. In a decision of 13 October 2000, the Constitutional Court declared their appeal inadmissible for the following reasons: “... It seems clear that the judgment of the High Court of Justice is limited to clarifying and determining, that is, interpreting, a specific point concerning the testatrix ’ s intention, as expressed in her will in the form of a family settlement in favour of a child or grandson of a lawful and canonical marriage. The High Court of Justice does not at any point suggest that there is general discrimination against, or inequality between, children according to whether they are biological or adopted. Such an assertion would evidently amount to a flagrant breach of Article 13 § 3 of the Constitution and would also be contrary to the prevailing legal opinion according to which legal systems must always be interpreted, which is that all children are equal, irrespective of their origin. However, as submitted in substance by State Counsel, ‘ discrimination against adopted children as compared to biological children does not in the instant case derive from an act of the public authorities, that is, from the judgment of the Civil Division of the High Court of Justice, but from the intention of the testatrix or settlor regarding who should inherit under her will ’ in accordance with the principle of freedom to make testamentary dispositions, which is a concrete manifestation of the general principle of civil liberty. In its judgment, the High Court of Justice confined itself to interpreting a testamentary disposition. It did so from the legal standpoint it considered adequate and in accordance with its unfettered discretion, seeing that the interpretation of legal instruments is a question of fact which, as such, falls under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. ...” 21. The applicants lodged an appeal ( recurso de súplica ) with the Constitutional Court, which dismissed it on 17 November 2000. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 22. Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Andorran Constitution of 14 March 1993 provide: Article 6 “1. Everyone is equal before the law. No one may be discriminated against on grounds of birth, race, sex, origin, religion, opinions or any other personal or social condition. 2. The public authorities shall create the conditions necessary to give full effect to the principles of equality and freedom.” Article 13 “1. The civil status of persons and forms of marriage shall be regulated by law. Canonical marriages are recognised as having civil effects. ... 3. Both spouses have the same rights and duties. All children are equal before the law, regardless of their filiation.” Article 14 “Everyone has the right to respect for their privacy, honour and image. Everyone is entitled to legal protection from unlawful interference with their private and family life.” 23. Section 24 of the Special Law ( qualificada ) of 21 March 1996 on the adoption and protection of minors in distress provides: “... Adopted children have the same rights and obligations within the adoptive family as legitimate children.” THE LAW I. THE GOVERNMENT ’ S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 24. The Government raised the objection that Article 8 of the Convention was inapplicable to the facts of the case because there had been no “family life” within the meaning of that provision between the applicants and Carolina Pujol Oller. In that connection, the Government referred to the lack of a genuine relationship between the grandmother, Carolina Pujol Oller, who had died in 1949, and the first applicant, who was adopted in 1969. In the Government ’ s submission, the Court had always adopted a pragmatic approach to the concept of “family life” in order to protect de facto rather than de iure family life. In that sense, the existence of a formal family tie was insufficient to attract the protection of Article 8. 25. For their part, the applicants disputed the Government ’ s submission, arguing that, if upheld, it would, for example, exclude posthumous children from the scope of Article 8. Moreover, the Government ’ s argument also concerned Carolina and Immaculada Serra, who had brought the proceedings in the Andorran courts to have the codicil set aside and had not known their great-grandmother either. 26. The Court points out that in Marckx v. Belgium (judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, pp. 23-24, §§ 51-52), it accepted that the right of succession between children and parents, and between grandchildren and grandparents, was so closely related to family life that it came within the sphere of Article 8. It has thus considered that matters of intestate succession – and voluntary dispositions – between near relatives prove to be intimately connected with family life. Family life does not include only social, moral or cultural relations, for example in the sphere of children ’ s education; it also comprises interests of a material kind, as is shown by, amongst other things, the obligations in respect of maintenance and the position occupied in the domestic legal systems of the majority of the Contracting States by the institution of the reserved portion of an estate ( réserve héréditaire ). The fact that Carolina Pujol Oller had died before the first applicant was adopted is no reason for the Court to adopt a different approach in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95, § 35, ECHR 2000- X). Article 8 of the Convention is therefore applicable. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 8 27. The applicants complained that, in determining inheritance rights, the High Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court had breached the applicants ’ right to respect for their private and family life by unjustifiably discriminating against the first applicant on the ground of his filiation. They submitted that this had resulted in a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. 28. Article 8 of the Convention provides: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 29. Article 14 provides: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” A. The parties ’ submissions 1. The applicants 30. The applicants stressed at the outset that the Court was faced with a problem that it had never had to deal with before. The previous cases it had examined (see Marckx, cited above; Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A. no. 126; and Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, ECHR 2000-II) had concerned the statutory provisions governing instances of intestate succession that had given rise to an unlawful interference by the State with the applicants ’ family life and/or discrimination in family relations on grounds of birth. 31. The present case related to the private sphere since it concerned the freedom to arrange one ’ s affairs in the form of a will made by Carolina Pujol Oller in 1939. The testatrix had died in 1949. The first applicant was adopted in 1969 and it was not until 1996, after the death of Carolina ’ s son and life tenant under her will, that the codicil he had drawn up in 1995 was opened. The applicants were in no doubt that the case fell to be examined under the provisions of private law, which had to be read in the light of Andorran law as in force in 1996 and the Convention. Those rules had evidently not been applied by the High Court of Justice. 32. The applicants pointed out that customary law ( ius commune) was a supplementary source of civil law under the Andorran law. The ius commune in force in Andorra incorporated Andorran customary law based on Roman law as revised in the light of canon law. That was the applicable legal framework in 1939, when the will was made. Adoption had already been a feature of canon law when it was first drafted over a thousand years ago. The Catholic Church attributed to adopted children the status laid down in canon 1094 of the Benedict XV Code, which was the relevant legislation in force when the will had been drafted in 1939. That status had been confirmed in 1983 by canon 110 of the modern Code of Canon Law, which enshrined the principle that adopted children and legitimate children were equal. There was abundant case-law authority to support the submission that canon law was a supplementary source of law in the Principality of Andorra. Moreover, under Roman law adopted children had the same inheritance and family rights as legitimate and illegitimate children. Adoption had therefore been envisaged both in canon law and in Roman law. It was therefore undeniably a known legal institution that had been used by Andorrans in 1939. 33. With regard to the rules on interpreting wills, the applicants observed that, in accordance with the relevant Roman tradition, where a testamentary disposition was clear and unambiguous there was no need to depart from it on the pretext of ascertaining its meaning. 34. Accordingly, if the testatrix had really intended to exclude adopted children from the family settlement, she would have inserted a specific clause to that effect, as was habitually done by Andorran and Catalan notaries. In that connection, the applicants referred to the many forms, notarial deeds and court decisions by which adopted sons were in practice always prevented from inheriting an estate by an express exclusion clause which required the child to be legitimate and biological. This was phrased in the following ways: “ son of a lawful, canonical and carnal marriage ”, or “ legitimate and biological son of a canonical marriage ” or “ son procreated by lawful and carnal marriage ”. In the present case, however, Carolina Pujol Oller had made no mention in her will of any tacit or express exclusion of adopted sons. The sole purpose of the clause had been to exclude illegitimate sons. 35. The High Court of Justice of Andorra had therefore failed to apply the appropriate law in the present case. In the applicants ’ submission, the court should have interpreted the will in accordance with the legislation in force in 1996, particularly the Andorran Constitution of 1993 and the adoption law of March 1996. That total failure to apply the appropriate law had resulted in an interference with their rights by the Andorran authorities, which were the ultimate guarantors of their right to enjoy their family life without any unjustified discrimination. In their view, the testatrix had clearly not made any distinction in her will regarding adopted children. Accordingly, it was neither for individuals nor the courts to make such a distinction, which was moreover contrary to the Andorran Constitution and the European Convention. The judgment of the High Court of Justice therefore amounted to an unlawful interference with their private and family life, which was clearly discriminatory as regards the first applicant. That interference and discrimination were expressly prohibited by the Andorran Constitution of 1993 and the Special Law on adoption and protection of minors in distress enacted in March 1996. 36. In conclusion, the applicants submitted that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. 2. The Government 37. The Government stressed at the outset that Andorran law did not in any way discriminate between adopted children and legitimate children. In Marckx, the Court had found a violation of the Convention, but that had been based on a statutory discrimination. It was the exact opposite situation here, since Andorran law recognised that grandchildren, be they legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, had the same statutory inheritance rights with regard to their parents (reserved portion of the estate on a testate succession and hereditary rights on an intestate succession) and with regard to their grandparents. In the Government ’ s submission, the present case differed substantially from Marckx because the first applicant had been left more than EUR 300,000 by his father and had had the same inheritance rights as his sister or any other legitimate brother or sister if there had been one. 38. The property dispute in the present case arose as a result of the free will of a testatrix who, under domestic law, had been entirely free to dispose of her property as she wished, apart from the reserved portion. Subject to that restriction, the freedom to dispose of the remaining assets was protected under Andorran law. Once the portion reserved to the heirs was protected, testators were free to dispose of the rest of the property as they wished. That was precisely what had happened here. The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the applicants ’ family life. Moreover, even supposing that the decisions of the Andorran courts could be deemed to have interfered with the rights to which the applicants referred, the interference had been justified. Firstly, the decision of the High Court could be deemed to have pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the right of the true heirs under the settlement and, accordingly, was aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of others. Secondly, the decision complained of fell within the States ’ margin of appreciation in areas such as the one in issue here. In sum, a fair balance had been struck between the competing rights in question. 39. In the Government ’ s submission, the High Court of Justice ’ s interpretation was in keeping with the testatrix ’ s intention in 1939 and the law in force in Andorra at the time of her death in 1949. According to the legal tradition applicable at the time, adopted sons did not have the same rights as legitimate sons under family settlements because the purpose of that institution was to keep the family estate in the family. The postglossators had already observed that extending family settlements to adopted sons meant that the fulfilment of the condition was in the hands of the life tenant, with the clear risk of fraud or abuse of right that that entailed. 40. The Government reiterated that the interpretation of domestic law was a matter solely for the domestic courts, which were the best placed to interpret and apply domestic law. The Court ’ s scrutiny was limited to ensuring that that application and interpretation were compatible with the requirements of the Convention. In the present case, the High Court of Justice had found, after examining the domestic law and the parties ’ allegations in detail in the course of the due exercise of its functions in interpreting the intention of the testatrix, that she had not included a provision expressly excluding adopted children because, to her mind, they had clearly been excluded by the term “son of a legitimate and canonical marriage”. In sum, the High Court of Justice ’ s interpretation had not breached the Convention, because the judgment contained no humiliating expression or declaration or one that could be regarded as infringing the human dignity of adopted children. The judgment was limited to finding that the testatrix had not intended adopted children to inherit her estate. Moreover, the will did not contain any clause that was illegal or contrary to public policy. The Government observed that any entitlement under a will was, by definition, discriminatory in that it generated differences between heirs. 41. In conclusion, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of the provisions in question. B. The Court ’ s assessment 42. Since the issue of alleged discriminatory treatment of the first applicant is at the heart of the applicants ’ complaint, the Court considers it appropriate to examine the complaint first under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. 43. The Court has had occasion in previous cases to examine allegations of differences of treatment for succession purposes both under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see Marckx, cited above, p. 24, § 54, and Vermeire v. Belgium, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 214 ‑ C, p. 83, § 28) and under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Inze, cited above, p. 18, § 40, and Mazurek, cited above, § 43 ). The Court reaffirms that the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities (see, for example, Johnston and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 25, § 55, and Camp and Bourimi, cited above, § 28). That being said, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in an effective “respect” for private or family life (see Marckx, cited above, pp. 14-15, § 31). The factor common to those cases was that the difference of treatment of which complaint was made resulted directly from the domestic legislation, which distinguished between legitimate and illegitimate children (see Marckx, Vermeire and Inze, cited above) or between children born of an adulterous relationship and other children, whether or not born in wedlock (see Mazurek, cited above). The question raised in each of these cases was whether such difference of treatment within the legal system of the respondent States violated the rights of the applicants under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 44. The essential difference between the present case and the above-cited ones is that in the instant case the Court is not required to determine whether there is an incompatibility between the Convention and the Andorran statutory provisions on adopted children ’ s inheritance rights. The Court notes in that connection, moreover, that the parties agreed that both the Andorran Constitution of 1993 and the special law on adoption of 21 March 1996 were compatible with the principle under Article 14 of the Convention prohibiting discrimination on grounds of birth. In the present case, the question in issue concerns the High Court of Justice of Andorra ’ s interpretation, upheld by the Constitutional Court, of a testamentary disposition drafted in 1939 and executed in 1995. The Court has to determine whether that interpretation breached Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. 45. Clearly, the Andorran authorities cannot be held liable for any interference with the applicants ’ private and family life any more than the Andorran State can be held liable for a breach of any positive obligations to ensure effective respect for family life. The applicants confined themselves to challenging a judicial decision that had declared a private deed disposing of an estate to be contrary to the testatrix ’ s wishes. The only outstanding question is that of the alleged incompatibility with the Convention of the Andorran courts ’ interpretation of domestic law. 46. On many occasions, and in very different spheres, the Court has declared that it is in the first place for the national authorities, and in particular the courts of first instance and appeal, to construe and apply the domestic law (see, for example, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 20, § 46; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 61, ECHR 2003-V; and Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 105, ECHR 2003 ‑ X). That principle, which by definition applies to domestic legislation, is all the more applicable when interpreting an eminently private instrument such as a clause in a person ’ s will. In a situation such as the one here, the domestic courts are evidently better placed than an international court to evaluate, in the light of local legal traditions, the particular context of the legal dispute submitted to them and the various competing rights and interests (see, for example, De Diego Nafría v. Spain, no. 46833/99, § 39, 14 March 2002). When ruling on disputes of this type, the national authorities and, in particular, the courts of first instance and appeal have a wide margin of appreciation. Accordingly, an issue of interference with private and family life could only arise under the Convention if the national courts ’ assessment of the facts or domestic law were manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary or blatantly inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Convention. 47. The present case dates back to 1939 when Carolina Pujol Oller, Francesc Pla Guash ’ s widow, made a will before a notary, the seventh clause of which settled her estate on her son, Francesc-Xavier (the first applicant ’ s father) as life tenant with the remainder to a son or grandson of a lawful and canonical marriage. Should those conditions not be met, the testatrix stipulated that her estate had to pass to the children and grandchildren of the remaindermen under the settlement. In 1949 Carolina Pujol Oller died. 48. The beneficiary under the will, Francesc-Xavier Pla Pujol, contracted canonical marriage to the second applicant, Roser Puncernau Pedro. By deed sworn before a notary in La Coruña ( Spain ) on 11 November 1969, the couple adopted a child, Antoni (the first applicant), in accordance with the procedure for full adoption in force under Catalan law. They subsequently adopted a second child. 49. By a codicil dated 3 July 1995, Francesc-Xavier Pla Pujol left the assets he had inherited under his mother ’ s will to his wife (the second applicant) for life, with the remainder to his adopted son, Antoni. Francesc-Xavier Pla Pujol died on 12 November 1996. The codicil was opened on 27 November 1996. The assets in question consisted of real estate. 50. Submitting that, as an adopted child, the first applicant could not inherit under the will made by the testatrix in 1939, two great-grandchildren of hers brought civil proceedings in the Tribunal des Battles, which dismissed their action. The High Court of Justice set the judgment aside on appeal and granted the appellants ’ claim. An appeal ( empara ) against that judgment was dismissed by the Constitutional Court. 51. With regard to the interpretation of the testamentary disposition, which is at the heart of the dispute, the Tribunal des Batlles, which dealt with the case at first instance, analysed the clause grammatically in the light of the historical background and applying Roman law as amended by canon law, which is a source of the general law applicable in Andorra. It concluded that the action should be dismissed. The court added that no foreign legislation, case-law or legal theory was applicable in the Principality. In its view, neither the wording of the clause nor the intention of the testatrix could prevent adopted children from inheriting under the will. 52. On appeal, the High Court of Justice construed the relevant facts and law differently. In the first place, it found that adoption had been practically unheard of in Andorra during the first half of the twentieth century. It concluded from this that it was difficult to reconcile the testatrix ’ s act of creating a family settlement in case the life tenant should die without leaving offspring of a lawful and canonical marriage with an intention to extend the arrangement to adopted children. Similarly, the court observed that the deed of adoption had been drawn up in Spain in accordance with the Spanish procedure for full adoption. Under the Spanish law applicable at the time, particularly Catalan law (to which the deed of adoption referred), on an intestate succession adopted children could inherit only from their adoptive father or mother and not from the rest of the adoptive parents ’ family. When examining the testatrix ’ s intention, the court found that both at the time when the will was made in 1939 and on the testatrix ’ s death in 1949 the adopted children of her legitimate son or son of the marriage were outside the family circle from a legal and sociological point of view. The court found that, in order for adopted children to be able to inherit under a Catalan family settlement, there would have to be no doubt as to the testatrix ’ s intention to depart from the usual meaning ascribed to that arrangement. The terms used in the will did not support that conclusion. 53. The Court notes that the Andorran courts gave two different interpretations: the first, given by the Tribunal des Batlles, was favourable to the applicants and the second, given by the High Court of Justice, went against them. Both are based on factual and legal elements that were duly evaluated in the light of the particular circumstances of the case. 54. The Court reiterates that Article 14 of the Convention complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to “the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms” safeguarded by those provisions. Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions – and to this extent it is autonomous – there can be no room for its application unless the facts in issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, among many other authorities, Van Raalte v. the Netherlands, judgment of 21 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I, p. 184, § 33, and Camp and Bourimi, cited above, § 34). 55. The Court has found above that the facts of the case fell within Article 8 of the Convention. Accordingly, Article 14 can apply in conjunction with Article 8. 56. The Court does not consider it appropriate or even necessary to analyse the legal theory behind the principles on which the domestic courts, and in particular the High Court of Justice of Andorra, based their decision to apply one legal system rather than another, be it Roman law, canon law, Catalan law or Spanish law. That is a sphere which, by definition, falls within the competence of the domestic courts. 57. The Court considers that, contrary to the Government ’ s affirmations, no question relating to the testatrix ’ s free will is in issue in the present case. Only the interpretation of the testamentary disposition falls to be considered. The Court ’ s task is therefore confined to determining whether, in the circumstances of the case, the first applicant was a victim of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. 58. In the present case, the Court observes that the legitimate and canonical nature of the marriage contracted by the first applicant ’ s father is indisputable. The sole remaining question is therefore whether the notion of “ son ” in Carolina Pujol Oller ’ s will extended only, as the High Court of Justice maintained, to biological sons. The Court cannot agree with that conclusion of the Andorran appellate court. There is nothing in the will to suggest that the testatrix intended to exclude adopted grandsons. The Court understands that she could have done so but, as she did not, the only possible and logical conclusion is that this was not her intention. The High Court of Justice ’ s interpretation of the testamentary disposition, which consisted in inferring a negative intention on the part of the testatrix and concluding that since she did not expressly state that she was not excluding adopted sons this meant that she did intend to exclude them, appears over contrived and contrary to the general legal principle that where a statement is unambiguous there is no need to examine the intention of the person who made it ( quum in verbis nulla ambiguitas est, non debet admitti voluntatis queastio ). 59. Admittedly, the Court is not in theory required to settle disputes of a purely private nature. That being said, in exercising the European supervision incumbent on it, it cannot remain passive where a national court ’ s interpretation of a legal act, be it a testamentary disposition, a private contract, a public document, a statutory provision or an administrative practice appears unreasonable, arbitrary or, as in the present case, blatantly inconsistent with the prohibition of discrimination established by Article 14 and more broadly with the principles underlying the Convention (see Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, §§ 30-31, ECHR 1999 ‑ I). 60. In the present case, the High Court of Justice ’ s interpretation of the testamentary disposition in question had the effect of depriving the first applicant of his right to inherit under his grandmother ’ s estate and benefiting his cousin ’ s daughters in this regard. Furthermore, the setting aside of the codicil of 3 July 1995 also resulted in the second applicant losing her right to the life tenancy of the estate assets left her by her late husband. Since the testamentary disposition, as worded by Carolina Pujol Oller, made no distinction between biological and adopted children it was not necessary to interpret it in that way. Such an interpretation therefore amounts to the judicial deprivation of an adopted child ’ s inheritance rights. 61. The Court reiterates that a distinction is discriminatory for the purposes of Article 14 if it has no objective and reasonable justification, that is if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a “ reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised ” (see, inter alia, Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 34, ECHR 2002-I). In the present case, the Court does not discern any legitimate aim pursued by the decision in question or any objective and reasonable justification on which the distinction made by the domestic court might be based. In the Court ’ s view, where a child is adopted (under the full adoption procedure, moreover), the child is in the same legal position as a biological child of his or her parents in all respects: relations and consequences connected with his or her family life and the resulting property rights. The Court has stated on many occasions that very weighty reasons need to be put forward before a difference in treatment on the ground of birth out of wedlock can be regarded as compatible with the Convention. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that reasons of public policy required the degree of protection afforded by the Andorran appellate court to the appellants to prevail over that afforded to the first applicant. 62. The Court reiterates that the Convention, which is a dynamic text and entails positive obligations for States, is a living instrument, to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and that great importance is attached today in the member States of the Council of Europe to the question of equality between children born in and children born out of wedlock as regards their civil rights (see Mazurek, cited above, § 30). Thus, even supposing that the testamentary disposition in question did require an interpretation by the domestic courts, that interpretation could not be made exclusively in the light of the social conditions existing when the will was made or at the time of the testatrix ’ s death, namely in 1939 and 1949, particularly where a period of fifty-seven years had elapsed between the date when the will was made and the date on which the estate passed to the heirs. Where such a long period has elapsed, during which profound social, economic and legal changes have occurred, the courts cannot ignore these new realities. The same is true with regard to wills: any interpretation, if interpretation there must be, should endeavour to ascertain the testator ’ s intention and render the will effective, while bearing in mind that “the testator cannot be presumed to have meant what he did not say” and without overlooking the importance of interpreting the testamentary disposition in the manner that most closely corresponds to domestic law and to the Convention as interpreted in the Court ’ s case-law. 63. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. 64. In the light of the conclusion set out in the previous paragraph, the Court is of the opinion that there is no need to examine the application separately under Article 8 of the Convention taken alone. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 65. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 66. The applicants submitted, firstly, that just satisfaction should take the form of setting aside the High Court of Justice ’ s judgment, upholding the judgment of the Tribunal des Batlles and reinstating the first applicant as life tenant of the estate of his grandmother, Carolina Pujol Oller. Should that not be possible, they submitted that their pecuniary loss corresponded to the value of the assets in Carolina Pujol Oller ’ s estate, which consisted of the following real property in the Principality of Andorra: the Hort de la Canaleta, the Hort d ’ ensucaranes, the Rec Vell de l ’ Obach, the Hôtel Pla and the Boïgues del Pla. According to an expert valuation dated 10 May 2001, the property was estimated to be worth 127,625,000 pesetas (767,042 euros (EUR)). In their last pleadings submitted at the hearing before the Court, the applicants submitted that, according to a recent expert valuation, the pecuniary damage amounted to EUR 1,195,913. 67. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, having regard to the health problems they had suffered – particularly the second applicant who was now 80 years old – and in view of the various proceedings brought before the Andorran courts, the applicants assessed the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the first applicant at EUR 120,000 and that sustained by the second applicant, who was his mother and supervisor, at EUR 30,000. 68. The Government, for their part, maintained that these claims were manifestly excessive. They submitted that since, under Andorran law, the first applicant ’ s father could have kept for himself half the assets inherited from his mother, the Government were liable for only half the value of the estate in question, this being the assets that had to be transferred to the first applicant. They did not accept the applicants ’ valuation of the assets. According to their expert ’ s valuation, the Hôtel Pla was worth EUR 661,885. The aggregate value of the other property (land) was EUR 89,281. In all, the Pla family ’ s fortune had to be estimated at a maximum of EUR 751,166, to be reduced by one half: one quarter being the reserved portion of the estate and a further quarter being the amount of which the life tenant (the first applicant ’ s father) could freely dispose. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, the Government submitted that the finding of a violation would constitute in itself adequate just satisfaction. B. Costs and expenses 69. In respect of the costs and expenses relating to their legal representation, the applicants claimed the reimbursement of EUR 76,460. They provided the following supporting documents: (i) EUR 30,094 for fees incurred in the proceedings at first instance (supporting invoice dated 26 October 1999 ); (ii) EUR 14,320 for fees incurred in the proceedings before the High Court of Justice (supporting invoice dated 10 May 2000 ); (iii) EUR 7,611 for fees incurred before the Constitutional Court (supporting invoice dated 30 November 2000 ); (iv) EUR 967 for fees paid to the solicitor in the domestic proceedings (supporting invoices dated 2 November 1999 and 10 November 2000 ); (v) EUR 9,916 for fees incurred in opposing enforcement of the High Court of Justice ’ s judgment of 18 May 2000 (supporting invoice); (vi) EUR 1,171 for fees incurred in having Carolina Pujol Oller ’ s estate valued (supporting invoice dated 10 May 2001 ); (vii) EUR 12,378 for fees incurred in the proceedings before the Court (supporting invoices itemising the costs of defending the applicants before the Court). 70. The Government considered that the amounts claimed by the applicants under this head were exorbitant. In their submission, the costs incurred in the domestic courts should not be taken into consideration. 71. Having regard to the foregoing, the Government requested the Court not to rule at this stage on the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention, which, in their opinion, was not ready for decision. 72. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention is not ready for decision. Consequently, it must be reserved and the subsequent procedure fixed taking due account of the possibility of an agreement between the respondent State and the applicants (Rule 75 § 1). The Court allows the parties six months in which to reach such agreement.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. It noted that the first applicant’s parents had a “legitimate and canonical marriage” and there was nothing in the will in question to suggest that adopted children were excluded. The domestic courts’ decision had amounted to “judicial deprivation of an adopted child’s inheritance rights” which was “blatantly inconsistent with the prohibition of discrimination” (paragraph 59 of the judgment).