The case concerns the refusal by the Greek authorities to grant benefits and pension to mothers with at least four children, as prescribed by law, in case any of the children is not a Greek national. In this case, the family had lost Greek nationality. While most family members re-acquired it later, one of the daughters had remained stateless.
- art. 63 para. 3 & 4 of law 1892/1990
- art. 3 para. 4 of law 2163/1993
- art. 21 of the Greek Constitution
The applicant, a mother of four belonging to the Muslim minority, and her children, had been deprived of her Greek nationality in 1984. Nationality was reinstated for herself and three of her children in 2000. However, one daughter had not re-acquired Greek nationality, thus remaining stateless.
The applicant submitted an application to be granted a pension as a mother of four children, as, according to the Greek legislation mothers of four children or more are entitled to a lifelong pension. Her application was rejected, on the grounds that possession of Greek nationality by the children is a prerequisite in order to be granted the pension. In her case, this requirement was not fulfilled since one of the children was stateless.
The applicant argued that the refusal of the authorities to grant the pension was unconstitutional, contravening art. 21 of the Greek constitution protecting families with many children and motherhood, and contrary to the provisions of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, as well as Art. 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Furthermore, the applicant noted that all her four children had been Greek nationals at birth.
The court rejected the arguments of the applicant, noting that:
(a) the relevant benefits were aiming at encouraging Greek nationals to procreate, and were primarily addressed at protecting families with many children and not motherhood. As a result, the requirement of possession of Greek nationality could not be regarded as unconstitutional, since the scope of the law justified differentiated treatment between mothers with children that were Greek nationals and mothers with children that were not.
(b) the fact that all four of the children of the applicant were Greek nationals at birth is not decisive, since possession of Greek nationality by the children is a requirement that should be applicable at the time the benefit is approved.
(c) no breach of the 1954 Convention could be substantiated, as the applicant herself is not a stateless person, while her daughter, who is actually stateless, is a third party with regards the court proceedings.
(d) no contradiction to the European Convention on Human Rights could be identified (art. 8 and 12, as well as art. 1 of the 1st Protocol), since the provisions solely concerned a benefit, and did not interfere with the right to establish a family, and in any case, the entitlements had been introduced in 1990, several years after the family had lost Greek nationality (in 1984).
(e) Finally, the argument that the provisions were discriminatory on grounds of religion was also considered unfounded, since the legislation does not include any reference to the religion of the person claiming the benefit.
The court rejected the application.
The full text of the decisions is available at the following link (in Greek): http://www.adjustice.gr/webcenter/faces/wcnav_externalId/search-caselaw…
The case was subsequently brought to the European Court of Human Rights, Zeibek v. Greece (application No 46368/2006), which found violations of Art. 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Art. 1 of the 1st Protocol.