BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF CRILLY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 12895/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
November 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Crilly v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr J. Casadevall,
President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K.
Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Mrs P. Hirvelä,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 12895/02) against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr William
Crilly (“the applicant”) on 26 September 2000.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr John Savage a financial accountant
practising in Cornwall. The United Kingdom Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley
of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to
grant him Widow's Bereavement Allowance or equivalent constituted
discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the
Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- By
a partial decision of 30 April 2002 the Court decided to communicate
the complaint concerning Widow's Bereavement Allowance and declared
inadmissible the remainder of the application. By a decision of 4
November 2003 the Court declared the remainder of the application
admissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Devon.
- His
wife died on 10 March 1997. On 24 February 2000 the applicant's
representative made a claim on behalf of the applicant to the Inland
Revenue, requesting an allowance equivalent to that received by a
widow, namely Widow's Bereavement Allowance (“WBA”) for
the years 1996/7 and 1997/8. On 13 March 2000 the Inland Revenue
informed him that he was ineligible for WBA as he was not a woman.
The applicant's representative replied by letter on 16 March 2000 and
again on 4 August 2000 arguing that the refusal was discriminatory.
The Inland Revenue responded on 11 August 2000, maintaining its
decision to refuse the allowance. The applicant's representative
wrote also to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on whose behalf the
Personal Tax Division of the Inland Revenue replied on 19 September
2000, confirming that the applicant, as a man, was not entitled to
WBA. The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was
advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such
benefit was payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's
judgment in the case of Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00 (BAILII: [2006] ECHR 976 ],
63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN
IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to
grant him WBA or equivalent constituted discrimination on grounds of
sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction
with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Article
14 of the Convention provides:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set
forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on
any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a
national minority, property, birth or other status.”
Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 provides:
“1. Every natural or legal person is
entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall
be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and
subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general
principles of international law.
2. The preceding provisions shall not,
however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws
as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance
with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
- The
Court has previously examined cases raising issues similar to those
in the present case and found a violation of Article 14 of the
Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and
Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00 (BAILII: [2006] ECHR 976 ], 63475/00, 63484/00 and
63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007, §§ 53-54).
- The
Court has examined the present case and finds that the Government
have not presented any facts or arguments which would lead to any
different conclusion in this instance. Therefore the Court considers
that the difference in treatment between men and women as regards
entitlement to WBA, of which the applicant was a victim, was not
based on any “objective and reasonable justification”
(see Hobbs, cited above, § 53).
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention
taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
- The
applicant did not submit any claims in respect of pecuniary and non
pecuniary damage.
-
Consequently, the Court makes no award under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed GBP 4,200 in respect of costs and expenses,
inclusive of value added tax (“VAT”). He made reference
to the Court's case law in Crossland v. the United Kingdom,
(no. 36120/97, 9 November 1999) which involved the
representation of a single client and in which the costs awarded were
similar to those claimed by the applicant.
-
The Government contested the claim. It held that in the present case
what was at stake was a tax allowance amounting to GBP 543.
Consequently legal expenses amounting to eight times as much could
not be considered reasonable as to quantum. Moreover, the Government
did not consider reasonable the amount of time claimed to have been
spent on the application and the professional fees per hour.
Consequently, they submitted that 400 euros would be a reasonable sum
in respect of legal costs and expenses.
- The
Court reiterates that only such costs and expenses as were actually
and necessarily incurred in connection with the violation or
violations found, and are reasonable as to quantum, are recoverable
under Article 41 (see, for example, Şahin v. Germany
[GC], no. 30943/96, § 105, ECHR 2003-VIII). On the
basis of the information in its possession and taking into account
that the issues concerning WBA were established in Hobbs
(cited above) the Court awards the applicant EUR 600 for legal costs
and expenses, in addition to any VAT that may be payable.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 concerning the applicant's non-entitlement to a Widow's
Bereavement Allowance;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amount to be converted into the national currency of the respondent
State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 600 (six hundred euros) in respect of costs and
expenses;
(ii) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amount;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
