Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Grand Chamber judgment: case of Molla Sali v. Greece (application no. 20452/14)

December 19, 2018/3 Comments/in News/by Apostolos Anthimos
image_pdfimage_print

In a much anticipated outcome, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.

The case concerned the application by the domestic courts of Islamic religious law (Sharia) to an inheritance dispute between Greek nationals belonging to the Muslim minority, contrary to the will of the testator (a Greek belonging to the Muslim minority, Ms Molla Sali’s deceased husband), who had bequeathed his whole estate to his wife under a will drawn up in accordance with Greek civil law.

The full text of the decision may be found here. 

The press release of the Court is available here.

For the recent amendments in pertinent Greek legislation, see here.

 

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Apostolos Anthimos https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Apostolos Anthimos2018-12-19 17:17:422018-12-19 17:17:42Grand Chamber judgment: case of Molla Sali v. Greece (application no. 20452/14)
3 replies
  1. Martin Margonski says:
    December 22, 2018 at 10:00 am

    Both the ECHR judgement and the Greek legislation (law 4511/2018) are highly interesting from the point of view of the application of the succession regulation in other member states. I have two questions concerning the matter, if I may:

    1. Has the problem been discussed under art. 75 succession regulation? To which extend is the application of the sharia law rooted directly in the Treaty of Sèvres and the Treaty of Lausanne (and not in the Greek domestic legislation, which would fall under art. 37 succession regulation)? Are both treaties third state agreements mentioned in art. 75 succession regulation?

    2. Has the notification of the mufti as a court under the succession regulation (art 3 sec. 2 succession regulation) been discussed in Greece?

  2. Apostolos Anthimos says:
    December 24, 2018 at 11:54 am

    These are important and plausible questions. Howewer, I fear that my answers will disappoint you…

    Re nr. 1.1: No
    Re nr. 1.2: It is based on domestic legislation, which ratified the international conventions you mention. Art. 37 has not been included in the domestic debate.
    Re nr. 1.3: No. Check https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_restrictions_on_successions__special_rules-487-el-en.do?member=1 & https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_general_information-166-el-en.do?member=1.

    Re nr. 2: No, and it is not included in the declaration made by the Hellenic Republic, check https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_succession-380-el-en.do?member=1.

  3. Martin Margonski says:
    December 27, 2018 at 6:47 am

    Thank you. As to my second question, answering the preliminary questions in the case C-658/17, WB the ECJ should tell us, whether and to what extend the lacking notification matters, if all other elements of the definition of the court are fulfilled. I expect a purely informative nature of the notification. The opinion of the AG Bot is planned for 28th February. In such case, the mufti could be a court, if his position according the Greek law fulfils the criteria set for a court in the succession regulation also in case of a missing notification.

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: After the Romans: Private International Law Post Brexit Link to: After the Romans: Private International Law Post Brexit After the Romans: Private International Law Post Brexit Link to: Ontario Court Holds Law of Bangladesh Applies to Rana Plaza Collapse Claim Link to: Ontario Court Holds Law of Bangladesh Applies to Rana Plaza Collapse Claim Ontario Court Holds Law of Bangladesh Applies to Rana Plaza Collapse Claim
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top