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 BOND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 63479/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 April
2008
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 Bond v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Lech
Garlicki,
President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Stanislav
Pavlovschi,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 11 March 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 63479/00) 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 Grattan
Bond (“the applicant”) on 2 November 2000.
- The applicant was represented before the Court by
Pierce Glynn Solicitors, London. 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 widows' social security and tax benefits 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 decision of 8 October 2002 the Court decided to
communicate the complaint in connection with his claim for widows'
benefits, relating to discrimination suffered by him during the
period after the date on which he lodged his “second”
claim for widows' benefits and his claim for Bereavement Tax
Allowance. It declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it
subsequently decided 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 1953 and lives in Merseyside.
- His
wife died on 4 November 1997, leaving one child born in 1992. His
second claim for widows' benefits was made in May 2000 and was
rejected on 26 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to
widows' benefits because he was not a woman. After asking for
reconsideration, the decision was again confirmed on 13 June 2000.
The applicant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal which on 2
October 2000 confirmed the previous decision. The applicant did not
appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy
would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were
payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
- On
1 November 2000 the applicant applied to the Inland Revenue,
requesting an allowance equivalent to that received by a widow,
namely Widow's Bereavement Allowance (“WBA”) for the
years 1997/8 and 1998/9. On 14 November 2000 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 social
security benefits were 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 Willis v. the United Kingdom, no.
36042/97, §§ 14 26, ECHR 2002-IV and Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00,
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 OR 8 OF THE
CONVENTION.
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to
pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have
been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, constituted
discrimination against him on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14
of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 or Article 8 of the Convention.
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.”
Article
8 provides (as relevant):
“1. Everyone has the right to respect
for his private and family life...
2. There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in
the interests of ... the economic well-being of the country...”
A. Widowed Mother's Allowance
1. Admissibility
The
Court finds that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, or inadmissible
on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. 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 (see
Willis, cited above, §§ 41-43).
- The
Court has examined the present case and finds that there are no facts
or arguments from the Government 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 WMA, of which the applicant was a victim, was not based on any
“objective and reasonable justification” (see Willis,
cited above, § 42).
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention
taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
Court, having concluded that there has been a breach of Article 14
of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 as regards the applicant's non-entitlement to WMA, does not
consider it necessary to examine his complaints in that regard under
Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see Willis,
cited above, § 53).
B. Widow's Bereavement Allowance
1. Admissibility
- The
Government submitted that in order to obtain WBA a tax payer had to
be liable to pay income tax for the years to which his claim related.
The applicant was not working at the time of his wife's death and the
Revenue records indicated that he had insufficient income in each of
the relevant years of assessment to benefit from an income tax
reduction. Thus, had he been a woman he would not have been entitled
to any reduction in income tax.
- The
Court recalls that under Article 34 of the Convention it may receive
applications from individuals and others “claiming to be the
victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the
rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols thereto”.
In order to claim to be a victim of a violation, a person must be
directly affected by the impugned measure (see, for example, the
Buckley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September
1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1288, §§
56-59). In the present case, the applicant cannot be said to have
been directly affected by the discrimination of which he complains,
since a woman in the same position who had had insufficient income in
the relevant years of assessment to benefit from an income tax
reduction would have had no entitlement to WBA under domestic law
(see, mutatis mutandis, Rogan v. the United Kingdom,
no. 57946/00, decision of 8 September 2001).
- It
follows the applicant cannot claim to have been a victim of a
violation of his rights under the Convention and First Protocol, and
that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the
provisions of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
C. Widow's Pension
1. Admissibility
- The Court notes that the applicant's child will soon
cease to be a minor and consequently the applicant will soon cease to
be entitled to WMA. Thus, the claim in respect of Widow's Pension
(“WP”) will no longer be hypothetical.
- However, the Court held in its lead judgment regarding
WP that at its origin, and until its abolition in respect of women
whose spouses died after 9 April 2001, WP was intended to correct
“factual inequalities” between older widows, as a group,
and the rest of the population and that this difference in treatment
was reasonably and objectively justified. Moreover, the Court
considered that the United Kingdom could not be criticised for not
having abolished WP earlier and that it was not unreasonable of the
legislature to decide to introduce the reform slowly (see Runkee
and White v. the United Kingdom, no.
42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007). The Court,
consequently, considering it was not necessary to examine separately
the complaint in respect of Article 8, did not find a violation of
Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in
respect of the non-payment to the applicants of Widow's Pension or
equivalent (ibid § 42).
- Consequently,
this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
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 damage
- In
respect of pecuniary damage the applicant claimed the following
amounts:
(i) GBP
1,000 for Widow's Payment;
(ii) GBP
16,696.40 for WMA payments from 4 November 1997 to 9 April 2001
(less incapacity benefit);
(iii) Interest
at the rate of 8% on the above amounts, namely, GBP 991.58;
(iv) Christmas
bonus, GBP 30;
(v)
Loss of income in the amount of GBP 220,950;
(vi)
Payment of WBA due, plus interest at 8 %;
(vii)
Payment of WP from 2008 onwards.
- The
Government submitted that the application was only admissible in
relation to the claim introduced in 2000 and that therefore the sum
to which the applicant was entitled in respect to WMA amounted to
GBP 892.61 including interest. The Government did not comment
upon claims already declared inadmissible and contested the other
remaining claims.
- The
Court notes that it has only found a violation in respect of WMA, and
only for the period after the date on which the applicant lodged his
“second” claim. In these circumstances, the Court awards
compensation to the applicant of GBP 892.61 (approximately 1,200
euros) in respect of the refusal to grant him WMA up to 9 April 2001
and interest on that sum. The Court further considers that there is
no causal link between the remaining pecuniary damage alleged by the
applicant and the violation found in the present case (see Central
Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta, no.
35829/03, § 58, 24 October 2006). It therefore makes no award in
respect of those claims.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
- The
applicant claimed GBP 11,134.61 for the hurt and distress caused by
the alleged violation.
-
The Government contested the claim.
- The
Court does not find it established that the applicant was caused
real and serious emotional damage as a result of being denied the
benefit in question. No award can accordingly be made under this
head.
C. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed GBP 3,528.23 in respect of costs and expenses,
inclusive of value added tax (“VAT”).
- The
Government contested the claim, which they believed was excessive,
especially in view of the number of inadmissible claims. They
submitted that the figure of GBP 1,000 inclusive of VAT would
suffice.
- According to its settled case-law, the Court will
award costs and expenses in so far as these relate to the violation
found and to the extent to which they have been actually and
necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, among
other authorities, Schouten and Meldrum v. the Netherlands,
judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 304, pp. 28-29, § 78
and Runkee and
White v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §
57). On the basis of the information in its possession and taking
into account that the issues concerning WMA were established in
Willis, and that most of the applicant's recurring submissions
referred to issues already established in the partial decision of 8
October 2002, the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,350 for legal
costs and expenses, in addition to any VAT that may be payable.
D. 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
- Decides to declare admissible the complaint
relating to the applicant's non-entitlement to a Widowed Mother's
Allowance as from the date of his second claim for benefits and
inadmissible the remainder of the application.
- 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 Widowed
Mother's Allowance;
- Holds that it is not necessary to consider
Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention as
concerns the applicant's non-entitlement to a Widowed Mother's
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
amounts to be converted into the national currency of the respondent
State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros) in respect of pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR
1,350 (one thousand three hundred and fifty euros) in respect of
costs and expenses;
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts 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 1 April 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
Registrar President
