CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 juin 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 43 June 2002 Willis v. the United Kingdom - 36042/97 Judgment 11.6.2002 [Section IV] Article 14 Discrimination Sex Unavailability of widows’ allowances to widower: violation Facts : The applicant’s wife died in 1996. For most of their married life, she had been the primary breadwinner and had paid full social security contributions as an employed person. The applicant, who had given up work to nurse his wife and care for their children, worked part-time after her death but, as this proved uneconomic, he ceased his employment in order to care full-time for the children. He applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow in similar circumstances would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance, but was informed that the benefits did not exist for widowers. Law : Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The allowances were paid out of the National Insurance Fund, into which male and female earners were obliged to pay contributions. It had not been argued that the applicant did not satisfy the various statutory conditions for payment of the allowances, the refusal to recognise his entitlement being based exclusively on his sex; a woman in the same position would have had an enforceable right to the allowances. It was not necessary to address the question whether a social security benefit had to be contributory in order to constitute a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The right to the allowances was a sufficiently pecuniary right to fall within the ambit of that provision. Since the applicant was denied the allowances on the ground of a distinction covered by Article 14, the latter provision was also applicable. The applicant was entitled to significantly fewer financial benefits than he would have been if he were a woman. The refusal was based exclusively on the fact that he was a man; it had not been argued that he failed to satisfy any of the other statutory conditions. This difference in treatment between men and women was not based on any objective and reasonable justification. As far as a Widow’s Pension was concerned, however, a widow in the applicant’s situation would not qualify until 2006 at the earliest and might never do so. Since the applicant had not been treated differently, no issue of discrimination arose in that respect, and it was unnecessary to consider whether the complaint fell within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – In view of the above conclusion, the Court considered unanimously that it was unnecessary to examine the applicant’s complaint in relation to the Widow’s Payment and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8. As to the Widow’s Pension, it had found that no issue of discrimination arose in that respect, and it was therefore unnecessary to examine whether the complaint fell within the scope of Article 8. It concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with either Article 8 or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that respect. Finally, the Court concluded unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint about discrimination suffered by his late wife. Article 13 – This provision does not guarantee a remedy allowing primary legislation to be challenged before a national authority on the ground that it is contrary to the Convention. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court made awards in respect of pecuniary damage and in respect of costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes