[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF ANDERSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 73652/01)
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 Anderson 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 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 73652/01) 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 Andrew
Anderson (“the applicant”), on 31 May 2001.
- The
applicant was unrepresented before the Court. 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.
- On
15 October 2002 the Court decided to communicate the complaint
concerning Widow's Bereavement Allowance and to declare the remainder
of the application inadmissible. It was subsequently decided under
the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, to examine
the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Penrith.
- His
wife died on 22 December 1994. On 22 January 2001 the applicant made
a claim to the Inland Revenue requesting an allowance equivalent to
that received by a widow, namely Widow's Bereavement Allowance
(“WBA”). On 22 February 2001 the Inland Revenue informed
him that he was ineligible for WBA as he was not a woman. 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
- 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.”
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- 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 a
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.
II. 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. Damage
- The
applicant claimed the equivalent of the tax allowance due, in respect
of pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the argument on the basis of the Court's
jurisprudence.
- In
its lead judgment regarding WBA the Court found no reason to remedy
the inequality of treatment by “levelling up” and
awarding the value of tax benefits which had been found to be
unjustified. It accordingly made no award in respect of the pecuniary
loss alleged to have been suffered (see Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, cited above,
§ 69).
- The
Court finds no reason to depart from this finding and consequently no
award can be made under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant stated that he had not incurred any legal costs and
expenses.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the remainder of the application
admissible;
- 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;
- Dismisses 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
