CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 12 mars 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6742ECBF { width:0.79pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     129   12.3.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CONCERNING the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment which is final [1] :   SECTION 2   (1)     Sawden v. the United Kingdom (application no. 38550/97)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Dean Sawden, a British national, married in 1994 and had two children, born in 1989 and 1992. His wife died in August 1997, leaving him as the administrator of her estate.   The applicant’s wife was employed as a shop assistant for four years and contributed about half of their joint income. She paid full social security contributions as an employed earner, except when she gave up work to care for their children, and was subsequently entitled to contribution credits as a person who was incapable of work. The applicant gave up work to nurse his wife and care for their children in January 1997.   In September 1997 the applicant applied for social security benefits equivalent to those to which a widow   - whose husband had died in similar circumstances to his wife - would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992. He was informed that his claim was invalid because the regulations governing the payment of widows’ benefits were specific to women. He lodged an unsuccessful appeal against this decision on 2   October 1997.   Mr Sawden wished to increase his income and continue to care for his children by working part time. However, under Income Support Rules, any earnings over 15 pounds sterling (GBP) per week would be deducted from his benefit. His family’s standard of living was thus effectively fixed at a low level until circumstances changed to allow him to return to full-time work. If he had been entitled to receive social security benefits equivalent to those to which a woman in similar circumstance to himself would have been entitled, he could have worked part time and would have received benefits of around GPB 85 per week. He would also have received a one off Widow’s Payment of GPB 1,000.   On 9 April 2001 the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 came into force, making bereavement benefits available to both men and women.   The applicant complained that British social security and tax legislation discriminated against him on grounds of sex, in breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, taken in conjunction with both Article 8 (right to respect for family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). He further complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which GBP 1,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.