London, 5 July 2012
On 26 June 2012, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Kurić and others v Slovenia. The case had been brought by eight of the roughly 18,000 people who had been left stateless after Slovenia “erased” their names from the civil registry following their failure to claim citizenship in the months after the country’s declaration of independence on 25 June 1991. The Court found that Slovenia had violated Article 8 and Articles 13 and 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). In respect to Article 14, the Grand Chamber approach departed from the Chamber approach of 2009.
The Applicants had been citizens of Yugoslavia of non-Slovene ethnic origin residing permanently in Slovenia before Slovenia’s independence. They argued that, in the enjoyment of their right to respect for private and family life under Article 8, they had been discriminated against on the ground of their national origin, when compared to other non-citizens. The Applicants claimed that they were treated less favourably than “real” (non-Yugoslav) aliens who had lived in Slovenia since before independence and whose permanent residence permits had remained valid under the Aliens Act. They also claimed that Slovenia had failed to provide an effective remedy to the “erased” as required by Article 13 of the Convention.
In 2007, the Equal Rights Trust submitted a third-party intervention in this case focusing on legal interpretations regarding discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention based on national origin, nationality and statelessness, particularly following state succession, in relation to the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8). ERT argued that the “erasure” was discriminatory against persons of former Yugoslav nationalities. ERT further argued that the failure to provide protection for the Applicants who had been made stateless had resulted in violation of Article 14 in combination with Article 8.
The Court’s Grand Chamber disagreed with the 2009 Chamber decision to not consider separately whether there had been violation of Article 14, after finding a violation of Article 8. The Grand Chamber held that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. In reaching its decision, the Court reasoned that after the declaration of independence, the situation of the “real” aliens and those who had been citizens of the former federal state (later the “erased”) became at least comparable and there had been a difference in treatment between the two groups.
The Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that the need to form a corpus of Slovenian citizens with a view to the then forthcoming parliamentary elections of 1992 was a legitimate aim for the differential treatment, as residence status did not confer a right to vote in national elections.
The Court found that the differential treatment complained of was based on the national origin of the persons concerned – as former Yugoslav citizens were treated differently from other foreigners – and that it did not pursue a legitimate aim and therefore lacked an objective and reasonable justification.
To read the ERT case summary, click here.
To read the Court decision, click here.
To read the ERT amicus brief, click here.
