Case Law

Final judgment: 15 February 2006. Similar to: Okpisz v. Germany, Final judgment of 25 October 2005, Appl. No. 59140/00 Facts: The applicants in both cases are immigrants, in possession of residence permits for exceptional purposes. Their requests for child benefits were rejected as they were not in possession of unlimited residence permits or provisional residence permits, as required by law. In the Niedzwiecki case all appeals in the domestic proceedings were rejected. In the Okpisz case the applicant?s appeal was suspended after the Social Court of Appeal had referred some pilot cases to the Federal Constitutional Court. In a judgment of 6 July 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residential permit lacked sufficient justification. After that decision, the applicant?s appeal was again suspended pending the amendment of the applicable legislation. Complaint before the Court: The applicants complained that the German authority?s refusal of child benefits amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Legal Argumentation: The Court held that granting child benefits come within the scope of respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR and therefore Article 14 ? taken together with Article 8 ECHR ? is applicable. The Court found no ?objective and reasonable justification? for the applicants to be treated differently (para. 32 of Niedzwiecki v. Germany and para. 33 of Okpisz v. Germany) Therefore the Court found a violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR.

25 October 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland

Final judgment: 15 February 2006. Similar to: Niedzwiecki v. Germany, Final judgment of 25 October 2005, Appl. No. 58453/00 Facts: The applicants in both cases are immigrants, in possession of residence permits for exceptional purposes. Their requests for child benefits were rejected as they were not in possession of unlimited residence permits or provisional residence permits, as required by law. In the Niedzwiecki case all appeals in the domestic proceedings were rejected. In the Okpisz case the applicant?s appeal was suspended after the Social Court of Appeal had referred some pilot cases to the Federal Constitutional Court. In a judgment of 6 July 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residential permit lacked sufficient justification. After that decision, the applicant?s appeal was again suspended pending the amendment of the applicable legislation. Complaint before the Court: The applicants complained that the German authority?s refusal of child benefits amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Legal Argumentation: The Court held that granting child benefits come within the scope of respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR and therefore Article 14 ? taken together with Article 8 ECHR ? is applicable. The Court found no ?objective and reasonable justification? for the applicants to be treated differently (para. 32 of Niedzwiecki v. Germany and para. 33 of Okpisz v. Germany) Therefore the Court found a violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR.

25 October 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland