CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 mars 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 } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s2342A031 { 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:top } .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 } .s4F2EDFF { 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:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .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)24 [1]   Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 8 cases concerning discrimination between widows and widowers on grounds of gender regarding social security benefits against 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 the discrimination between widows and widowers on grounds of gender regarding social security benefits (violations of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix) (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)24   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 8 cases concerning discrimination between widows and widowers on grounds of gender regarding social security benefits against United Kingdom   Introductory case summary   The cases concern discrimination on grounds of gender, on account of the United Kingdom authorities’ refusal to pay the applicants, widowers, social security benefits available to women in a similar position. The cases of Murray Robert, Twomey, Nelson, Turner and Mitchard concern the applicants’ entitlement to widowed mother’s allowance, under section 37 of the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992. The cases of Booth, Twizell and Shireby concern the applicants’ entitlement to widow’s payment, under section 36 of the Social Security 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). 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 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 Nelson, no. 74961/01 01/04/2008, final on 01/07/2008 26,955 EUR - 2,500 EUR 29,455 EUR Paid on 03/09/2008 Twizell, no. 25379/02 20/05/2008, final on 20/08/2008 1,960 EUR - - 1,960 EUR Paid on 03/07/2008 Shireby, no 28071/02 09/12/2008, final on 09/03/2009 - - - No just satisfaction awarded Booth, no. 27961/02 03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009 - - - No just satisfaction awarded Mitchard, no. 42711/02 03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009 - - - No just satisfaction awarded Murray Robert, no. 28045/02 03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009 - - - No just satisfaction awarded Turner, no. 42709/02 03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009 - - - No just satisfaction awarded Twomey, no. 28095/02 03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009 - - - No just satisfaction awarded     Notwithstanding the Court’s requests, in the cases of Murray Robert, Twomey, Turner, Mitchard, Booth and Shireby the applicants’ representatives submitted no claim under Article 41 of the Convention.     b) Individual measures   Considering that the violations found by the Court have ceased, consequent to amendments to the domestic law prior to the judgments of the Court (see General measures below), no individual measures are necessary.     II.   General measures   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 amendments had been introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, primarily sections 54 and 55 thereof, 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). 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 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.