CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 juin 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s24C63AC { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD33C961E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sD7BB3222 { width:1.38pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9BD93CD1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s6BE22B1D { width:252.02pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 61036/00 by Geoffrey OWENS against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 June 2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mr   K. Traja , judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 24 August 2000 and registered on 29 January 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Geoffrey Owens, is a United Kingdom national, born on 17 June 1950 and living in Liverpool. He is represented before the Court by Polly Glynn, a solicitor practising in London. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant and his wife were married in 1977 and had two children, born in 1983 and 1989. The applicant’s wife died on 1 February 1997. On or around 7 June 1997 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for the payment of social security benefits (“the first claim”). He applied for benefits equivalent to those which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance, both payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). He was informed by the Benefits Agency on 16 June 1997 that none of the benefits concerned were payable to him because they were available only to widows. The applicant applied again for the same benefits on 7 February 2000 (“the second claim”). That application was refused by the Benefits Agency on 2   March 2000 on the grounds that the applicant was not a woman. The applicant appealed against this latter decision to a social security appeal tribunal. The tribunal dismissed his appeal on 12 May 2000 and confirmed the reasoning which had been given by the Benefits Agency in its decision of 2 March. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Under United Kingdom law, certain social security benefits, including Widow’s Payment, Widowed Mother’s Allowance, and Widow’s Pension, are paid for out of the National Insurance Fund. By Section 1 of the 1992 Act, the funds required for paying such benefits are to be provided by means of contributions payable to the Secretary of State for Social Security by earners, employers and others, together with certain additions made to the Fund by Parliament. Male and female earners are obliged to pay the same social security contributions in accordance with their status as employed earners or self-employed earners. 1.   Widow’s Payment Under Section 36 of the 1992 Act, a woman who has been widowed is entitled to a widow’s payment (currently a lump sum payment of GBP   1,000) if: (i)     she is under pensionable age at the time when her husband died, or he was not then entitled to a Category A retirement pension; (ii)     her husband satisfied certain specified social security contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the 1992 Act. 2. Widowed Mother’s Allowance Under Section 37 of the 1992 Act, in so far as relevant, a woman who has been widowed (and who has not remarried) is entitled to a mother’s allowance on certain conditions, the following being the relevant conditions to the circumstance of the present case: (i)     her husband satisfied the contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the Act; and (ii)     she is entitled to receive child benefit in relation to a son or daughter of herself and her late husband. The Widowed Mother’s Allowance currently amounts to GBP 72.50 per week, with an extra GBP 9.70 per week in respect of the eldest eligible child, and a further GBP 11.35 per week in respect of other children. 3. Widow’s Pension Under Section 38 of the 1992 Act, a woman who has been widowed (and who is not remarried) is entitled to a widow’s pension if: (i)     her husband satisfied the contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the Act; and (ii)     at the date of her husband’s death she was over the age of 45 but under the age of 65; or (iii)     she ceased to be entitled to a widowed mother’s allowance at the time when she was over the age of 45 but under the age of 65. If the applicant were a woman, he could look forward to entitlement to a Widow’s Pension in the future, when he would no longer be entitled to the Widowed Mother’s Allowance. 4. Time-limit for applications for benefits Throughout the period in question, the time-limits for claiming widow’s payment and widowed mother’s allowance were set out in the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (Statutory Instrument 1987/1968), regulation 19 of which provided: “(6) The prescribed time for claiming benefits not specified in column (1) of Schedule 4 shall be – ... (b) twelve months in the case of ... widow’s benefit ... . (7)   The periods of six and twelve months prescribed by paragraph (6) are calculated from any day on which, apart from satisfying the condition of making a claim, the claimant is entitled to the benefit concerned.” In addition, section 1(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides, in relation to claims for widow’s payment: “Where under subsection (1) above a person is required to make a claim or to be treated as making a claim for a benefit in order to be entitled to it – (a) if the benefit is a widow’s payment, she shall not be entitled to it in respect of a death occurring more than 12 months before the date on which the claim is made or treated as made ... .” 5.   The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act (“the 1999 Act”) introduces two new social security benefits, Widowed Parent’s Allowance and   Bereavement Allowance. The Widowed Parent’s Allowance replaces the Widowed Mother’s Allowance. The Bereavement Allowance replaces the Widow’s Pension. Both are payable to men and women who meet the relevant qualifying conditions. The 1999 Act also introduces a new social security payment, called a Bereavement Payment, payable both to men and women in place of the Widow’s Payment. The relevant parts of the Act entered into force on 1 April 2001 and allow any man whose wife dies before, on or after that date, or any woman whose husband dies on or after that date, to apply for Widowed Parent’s Allowance. It also allows any man whose wife dies on or after that date to apply for Bereavement Payment or Bereavement Allowance in exactly the same way as a woman whose husband dies on or after that date. The 1999 Act preserves the entitlements of women under the 1992 Act whose husbands died before 1 April 2001. They thus continue to be entitled to the Widow’s Payment, Widowed Mother’s Allowance and Widow’s Pension where the relevant qualifying conditions are met. COMPLAINT The applicant complains that British social security legislation discriminates against him and his late wife on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. THE LAW The applicant complains that the lack of provision for widowers’ benefits under British social security legislation discriminates against him and his late wife on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He complains of a continuing violation from his wife’s death in 1997 onwards. Article 14 states: “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 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 ... .” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 states: “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 applicant’s complaint relates to both of his unsuccessful benefit claims. However, the Court notes that, in respect of the first claim, the final domestic decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention was reached on 16 June 1997, more than three years before the date on which the application was submitted to the Court. It follows that the application so far as it relates to the first claim has been submitted too late and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. In respect of the second claim, 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 and the Valmont v. the United Kingdom decision of 23 March 1999, unpublished). In the present case, during the period between his wife’s death on 1 February 1997 and 7   February 2000, the applicant cannot be said to have been directly affected by the discrimination of which he complains in respect of the refusal of the second claim, since a woman in the same position who had made no claim for widows’ benefits would have had no entitlement to widows’ benefits under domestic law. In particular she would have had no entitlement to a Widow’s Payment. It follows that for the period 1 February 1997 to 7 February 2000 the applicant cannot claim to have been a victim of a violation of his rights under the Convention and First Protocol, and that the application, insofar as it relates to this period, 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. The applicant complains also about discrimination suffered by his late wife in respect of the decisions to refuse the applicant widows’ benefits. The Court observes that this aspect of the complaint does not raise any issues separate to those raised in respect of the discrimination alleged to have been suffered by the applicant himself. The Court thus concludes that it would not be in the interests of justice to grant the applicant permission to represent his deceased wife in this connection. It follows that this aspect of the complaint is also 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. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the remainder of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3(b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint about discrimination suffered by him during the period after 7 February 2000; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar   President