EHRM, 28-08-2007, nr. 27038/04

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

Section 1, sentence 1 of the Crime Victims Compensation Act, as far as relevant, provides as follows:

On 10 December 2002 the Federal Social Court rejected the compensation claims of another plaintiff who was informed in Germany that her two children had been murdered in Spain on the ground that the crime had been committed outside German territory. On 10 April 2003 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit that plaintiff's constitutional complaint without giving any reasons.

Invoking Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the denial of compensation under the Crime Victims Compensation Act amounted to discrimination on ground of her national origin. She alleged that a French national falling victim to a crime on German territory would have received compensation according to the Crime Victims Compensation Act. She further submitted that her health damage had been directly caused in Germany and that it did not make any difference to the damage she suffered whether her daughter had been murdered in France or in Germany.

The Court considers it appropriate to examine the applicant's complaint under Article 14, taken together with Article 8, of the Convention, which provide as follows:

Article 14

Article 8

The Court observes, at the outset, that the applicant has not submitted her complaints to the Federal Constitutional Court by lodging a constitutional complaint. The Court takes note of the applicant's submission that a constitutional complaint would have lacked reasonable prospect of success, as the Federal Constitutional Court had recently rejected a constitutional complaint in a similar case (see relevant domestic law and practice, above).

However, the Court does not consider it necessary in the present case to examine whether the applicant has duly exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of 35 § 1 of the Convention as, in any event, it considers that the application as a whole is inadmissible for the reasons set out below.

Turning to the substance of the applicant's complaint, the Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law, Article 14 of the Convention is only applicable if the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one ore more of the substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols (see, among many other authorities, Petrovic v. Austria, judgment of 27 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, § 22; Willis v. United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 29, ECHR 2002-IV; and Niedzwiecki v. Germany, no. 58453/00, § 29, 25 October 2005).

Moreover, a difference of treatment is discriminatory for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention 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’. The Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see, among other authorities, Willis, cited above, § 39; and Niedzwiecki, cited above, § 32).

Starting on the assumption that the applicant's complaint falls within the ambit of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court observes that the domestic courts held that the applicant did not have a compensation claim under the Crime Victims Compensation Act, as the crime against her daughter had been committed outside German territory. According to the protective purpose of the law, the granting of victim's compensation was based on the concept that the State had a special responsibility for persons who became victims of crimes within its own territory, as it had not been able to protect this specific victim from a violent attack.

The Court considers, firstly, that compensation was not denied on the ground of the applicant's nationality, but because of the fact that the relevant crime had been committed outside German territory. Accordingly, there is no indication that the applicant was subject to unequal treatment because of her German nationality.

The Court is furthermore satisfied that the domestic authorities gave relevant reasons for limiting compensation claims to the effects of crimes which had been committed on German territory, namely the domestic authorities' failure to protect that victim on their own territory. There has, therefore, been no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention in this case.

Invoking Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4, the applicant complained that her daughter had been prevented from leaving German territory without jeopardising her mother's compensation claims. She finally complained that the denial of her compensation claims amounted to a violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all material in its possession, the Court finds that these complaints, even assuming that the applicant had exhausted domestic remedies, do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that the remainder of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.