CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 septembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s22765D7A { height:23.35pt } .s4E34B50A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s1C2B10C2 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s23CD0580 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sB74C263B { height:23.4pt } .s88A4DB4E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sDD8F0D07 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6A269875 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s11BEB50D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sEAD70FA9 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s241BF43A { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)135 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights 11 cases concerning discrimination between widows and widowers on grounds of gender regarding social security benefits and/or income tax allowance against the United Kingdom   (see details in appendix)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern discrimination on grounds of gender between widows and widowers regarding social security benefits and/or an income tax allowance (violations of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)135   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 11 cases concerning discrimination between widows and widowers on grounds of gender regarding social security benefits and/or income tax allowance against the United Kingdom   Introductory case summary   The cases concern discrimination on grounds of gender, in that the applicants, widowers were not entitled, to social security benefits and/or income tax allowance available to women in a similar position. The cases of Ginnifer, Harrison, Hubley, Jackson, O’Brien, Thomas, Wakeling and Wells concern the applicants’ entitlement to Widow’s Bereavement Allowance, under section 262(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The cases of Blackgrove, Bond and Thorne concern the applicants’ entitlement to Widowed Mother’s Allowance, under section 37 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The cases of Thomas and Thorne also concern the applicants’ entitlement to Widow’s Payment, under section 36 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.   The European Court acknowledged that it had previously examined cases raising issues similar to those in the present cases and had found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Willis against the United Kingdom, application no. 36042/97, judgment of 11 June 2002, final on 11 September 2005; Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and Geen against the United Kingdom, applications Nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 14 November 2006, final on 26 March 2007). On examining the present cases the Court found no facts or arguments from the government which would lead to a different conclusion. Accordingly, the Court held that the difference in treatment between men and women as regards entitlement to Widow’s Bereavement Allowance, Widowed Mother’s Allowance and Widow’s Payment was not based on any “objective and reasonable justification”, and constituted a violation Article   14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1.   I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application no. Date of judgment Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Blackgrove 2895/07 28/04/2009 Final on 28/07/2009 5,185 EUR - 370 EUR 5,555 EUR Paid on 03/07/2009 Bond 63479/00 01/04/2008 Final on 01/07/2008 1,200 EUR - 1,350 EUR 2,550 EUR Paid on 25/02/2010 Ginnifer 65507/01 17/07/2008 Final on 17/10/2008 - - 600 EUR 600 EUR Paid on 20/03/2009 Harrison 10721/02 17/07/2008 Final on 17/10/2008 - - 600 EUR 600 EUR Paid on 20/03/2009 Hubley 63480/00 08/07/2008 Final on 08/10/2008 - - 600 EUR 600 EUR Paid on 20/03/2009 Jackson 63647/00 17/07/2008 Final on 17/10/2008 - - 600 EUR 600 EUR Paid on 20/03/2009 O’Brien 61391/00 17/07/2008 Final on 17/10/2008 - - 600 EUR 600 EUR Paid on 20/03/2009 Thomas 63701/00 17/07/2008 Final on 17/10/2008 1,600 EUR - 3,000 EUR 4,600 EUR Paid on 11/06/2009 Thorne 28091/02 13/01/2009 Final on 13/04/2009 3,000 EUR - 2,400 EUR 5,400 EUR Paid on 03/07/2009 Wakeling 61395/00 08/07/2008 Final on 08/10/2008 - - 600 EUR 600 EUR Paid on 20/03/2009 Wells 63477/00 08/07/2008 Final on 08/10/2008 - - 600 EUR 600 EUR Paid on 20/03/2009     b) Individual measures   Considering that the violations found by the Court have ceased following amendments to domestic law prior to the judgments of the Court (see General measures below), in the circumstances, no other individual measure was considered necessary.     II.   General measures   With respect to the violations found regarding the difference in treatment between men and women as to social security benefits, that is to say Widowed Mother’s Allowance or Widow’s Payment, the issues raised in the present cases are similar to those raised in the Cornwell case (application No. 36578/97, friendly settlement, judgment of 25 April 2000, final on 25 July 2000). The Committee of Ministers’ examination of that case was closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)95), in which it satisfied itself that the applicant had been paid the sums provided in the friendly settlement and that legislative changes had been introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, mainly Section 54 and 55, granting equal treatment to widows and widowers in respect of social security benefits as from 9 April 2001 (see also Resolution ResDH(2003)130 in the Willis case and Resolution ResDH(2002)96 in the Leary case).   With respect to the violations found regarding the difference in treatment between men and women as to the Widow’s Bereavement Allowance, the issues raised in the present cases are similar to those raised in the Crossland case (No. 36120/97, friendly settlement, judgment of 9 November 1999, final on 9 February 2000). The Committee of Ministers’ examination of that case was closed by Resolution ResDH(2000)81, in which it satisfied itself that the applicant had been paid the sums provided in the friendly settlement and that section 34 of the Finance Act 1999 abolished the Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance in relation to deaths occurring on or after 6 April 2000.   In these circumstances, no further general measure was considered necessary.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the United   Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46 paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies