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 BOOTH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 27961/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 February 2009
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 Booth v. the United
Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi
Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 January 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 27961/02) 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 a British
national, Mr Tony Booth (“the applicant”), on 25 October
2001.
- The
applicant was represented by Royds Rdw, solicitors in 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 under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because he was a man, he was denied
social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.
- On
17 November 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaints
concerning widows' benefits. Subsequently, it was 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 1944 and lives in Sussex.
- His
wife died on 29 October 2000. They had no children from the marriage.
His claim for widows' benefits was made on 2 January 2001 and was
rejected on 31 May 2001 on the ground that he was not entitled to
widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not
appeal 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 are described in the Court's
judgment in the case of Willis v. the United Kingdom, no.
36042/97, §§ 14 26, ECHR 2002-IV.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN
CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 AND/OR ARTICLE 8 OF
THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to
pay him the social security benefit to which he would have been
entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow's
Payment (“Wpt”) and Widow's Pension (“WP”),
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 and/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. The Government's preliminary objection
- The
Government submitted that since the applicant's first letter to the
Court had not been in accordance with Rule 47 § 1 of the Rules
of Court, the application had been lodged more than six months from
the date on which the final decision was taken and should therefore
be declared inadmissible.
- The Court recalls that in accordance with Rule 47 §
5 of the Rules of Court, the date of introduction of the application
is as a general rule considered to be the date of the first
communication from the applicant setting out, even summarily, the
object of the application (see Calleja v. Malta, (dec.),
no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004).
- The
Court observes that the applicant's representative lodged a number of
applications with the Court regarding complaints related to the
various types of widow's benefits and therefore the same subject
matter. In
his covering letter, the applicant's representative described these
cases as a “group application for widowers seeking
equal entitlement to State bereavement benefits”. Although he
did not individualise the nature of the complaints of each
applicant, it was clear for the Court that they all wished to contest
their non-entitlement under Articles 8, 14 and 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The representative subsequently submitted follow-up schedules
including, on 25 October 2001, a schedule giving details of
the applicant in the instant case. The Court took as
the date of introduction of each application the date on which
the relevant schedule relating to a particular applicant was
submitted.
The
Court further notes that following a decision of 17 December 2002
taken by a Committee declaring the applicant's case inadmissible for
failure to comply with the six-month rule, the case was reopened in
view of the discovery of the schedule relating to the applicant.
The
Court therefore considers that, in the circumstances of the present
case and as accepted in all grouped widowers' cases filed by the
applicant's legal representative, the schedules as so submitted
suffice to be regarded as the applicant's first letter for the
purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
- Consequently,
since the applicant's first letter is dated 25 October 2001 and the
final decision in his case is dated 31 May 2001, the application has
not been lodged outside the six-month period. The Government's
objection is therefore dismissed.
B. Widow's Payment
1. Admissibility
- The
Court finds that the 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 Wpt, 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 Wpt, does not
consider it necessary to examine his complaints in that regard under
Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8.
C. Widow's Pension
Admissibility
- 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,
the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
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.”
- Notwithstanding the Court's requests dated 12 August
2008 and 16 October 2008, the applicant's representatives did
not submit a claim under Article 41 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Decides to declare admissible the complaint
relating to the applicant's non-entitlement to a Widow's Payment 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 Widow's
Payment;
- Holds that it is not necessary to examine
separately the complaint under Article 14 in conjunction with Article
8 of the Convention as concerns the applicant's non-entitlement to a
Widow's Payment.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 February 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Lech
Garlicki
Registrar President
