FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Applications nos. 1454/02 and 23 others
LAWRENCE and Others
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 April 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A. The circumstances of the cases
See attached table.
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 Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“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 (at the material time, a lump sum payment of 1,000 pounds sterling (GBP) 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; and
(ii) her husband satisfied certain specified social security contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the 1992 Act.
The Widow’s Payment replaced an equivalent earlier payment, called a Widow’s Allowance, paid to qualifying widows under the Social Security Act 1975.
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 cases:
(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 amounted to approximately 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 has not remarried) is entitled to a Widow’s Pension if her husband satisfied the contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the Act and:
(i) at the date of her husband’s death she was over the age of 45 but under the age of 65; or
(ii) 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.
4. Time-limit for applications for benefits
For the period up to 7 April 1997, the time-limits for claiming widows’ benefits were set out in the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (“the 1987 Regulations”), 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.”
As of 7 April 1997, regulation 19 was amended so as to read:
“(2) The prescribed time for claiming the benefits specified in paragraph (3) is three months beginning on the day on which, apart from satisfying the condition of making a claim, the claimant is entitled to the benefit concerned.
(3) The benefits to which paragraph (2) applies are–
...
(g) widow’s benefit; ...”
The time-limits set out in the amended version of regulation 19 applied to all widows’ benefits claims made as of 7 April 1997, regardless of the date of bereavement.
5. Bereavement Tax Allowance
Section 262(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 provides:
“Where a married man whose wife is living with him dies, his widow shall be entitled–
(a) for the year of assessment in which the death occurs, to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to an amount equal to the amount specified in section 257A(1) for that year, and
(b) (unless she marries again before the beginning of it) for the next following year of assessment, to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to an amount equal to the amount specified in section 257A(1) for that year.”
6. The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999
The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (“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 will be 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 9 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 9 April 2001. They will 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.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that British social security legislation is discriminatory on grounds of sex. The applicant in application no. 42711/02 makes the same complaint about British tax legislation. The applicant in application no. 1454/02 also complains of discrimination on behalf of his late wife.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain that the lack of provision for widowers’ benefits under British social security legislation discriminates against them on grounds of sex. The applicant in application no. 42711/02 makes the same complaint also in respect of lack of provision for Bereavement Tax Allowance for men under British tax legislation. All applicants complain of a continuing violation from their wives’ deaths on the dates set out at column 4 of the table attached.
All the applicants invoke Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, except the applicants in applications nos. 25388/02 and 40748/02, who invoke Article 14 alone, and the applicant in application no. 28132/02 who does not specifically refer to any article of the Convention. The applicant in application no. 1454/02 also complains of discrimination against his late wife in respect of the refusal to pay benefits to the applicant. The applicant in application no. 30405/02 also complains that he has been denied an effective remedy, contrary to Article 13.
Article 14 of the Convention provides:
“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 of the Convention 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 provides:
“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.”
Article 13 of the Convention provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
2. The applicants claim that, had they been women and had their wives been men, they would have been aware of their entitlement to widows’ benefits (and tax allowances) in the event of their death. They claim that this entitlement would have included Widow’s Payment.
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, Buckley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p.128, §§ 56-59, and Cornwell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), application no. 36578/97, 11 May 1999, unreported).
In the present cases, until each applicant applied to his local benefits office for widows’ benefits, or to the Inland Revenue for Bereavement Tax Allowance, or made clear his wish to claim those benefits, he could not claim to be a victim of discrimination, since a woman in the same position who had made no claim would have had no entitlement to widows’ benefits or tax allowance under domestic law. The Court notes that since 7 April 1997, a three-month time-limit, commencing from the date of entitlement, has applied to claims for widows’ benefits by women. A widow who does not claim a Widow’s Payment (now, under the 1999 Act, a Bereavement Payment) within three months of her husband’s death, loses all entitlement to this benefit. Widowed Mother’s Allowance and Widow’s Pension (and their equivalents under the 1999 Act) are continuing benefits which can be claimed at any time, assuming entitlement, but a claim made outside the three-month time-limit cannot be back-dated to the date of bereavement. Before 7 April 1997 the time-limit was 12 months.
3. The applicant in application no. 30405/02, as can be seen from the table, applied for widows’ benefits within the relevant time-limit from his wife’s death. This applicant can, therefore, claim to be a victim of discrimination from the date of bereavement, since a woman in a comparable position would have been able to claim a Widow’s Payment and have her claim for the other benefits back-dated. The Court finds that issues arise meriting communication to the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 54 § 3(b) of the Rules of Court. It therefore adjourns this part of the application.
4. The applicants in applications nos. 27950/02, 28000/02, 35278/02, 36951/02, 40748/02, 42691/02, 42702/02 and 42711/02 all made enquiries with the relevant benefits office around the time of their wives’ deaths; apparently within the relevant time-limit. Where the date of this enquiry (“the initial claim”) has been specified, it is set out at column 5 of the table. They made subsequent claims for benefit on the date shown in column 6 (the “relevant claim”). However, as regards their initial claims, the applicants were in each case advised that there were no benefits for widowers equivalent to those available for widows. In each case no further action was taken by the applicant at that time and the advice given was the final domestic decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In each case this decision was clearly more than six months before the date on which the application was submitted to the Court. It follows that the applications, so far as they relate to these initial claims, have been submitted too late and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Gardner and 3 others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 12937/02, 30 April 2002).
5. None of the applicants (save the applicant in application no. 30405/02) can be said to have been directly affected by the discrimination of which they complain during the period between their wives’ deaths, on the dates set out at column 4 of the table attached, and the dates on which they lodged their relevant claims for widows’ benefits, as set out at column 6 of the table. It follows that for the period between their wives’ deaths and the dates on which they lodged their relevant claims for widows’ benefits these applicants cannot claim to have been victims of a violation of their rights under the Convention and First Protocol, and that the applications, in so far as they relate to non-entitlement to widows’ benefits during this period, are 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.
6. The applicant in application no. 42711/02 complains of discrimination in respect of the decision to refuse him Bereavement Tax Allowance, but his application was introduced more than six months after the refusal and that aspect of his application must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4.
7. The applicant in application no. 1454/02 complains of discrimination on behalf of his late wife in respect of the decision to refuse widows’ benefits. However, the Court does not accept that, in respect of any discrimination which may have been suffered by this applicant’s late wife, the applicant concerned can claim to be a victim of the alleged violation. It follows that this aspect of the application concerned 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.
8. The applicant in application no. 30405/02 also invokes Article 13 of the Convention. The Court recalls that Article 13 does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State’s primary legislation to be challenged before a national authority on grounds that it is contrary to the Convention (see, for example, Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 62, ECHR 2002-IV). It follows that this aspect of the application concerned is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
9. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the remainder of each application, namely the complaints of discrimination for the period after the applicant made a relevant claim (as set out in column six of the table), and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3(b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of them to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides, in respect of application no. 30405/02, where the applicant complains about discrimination in relation to widows’ benefits and made a claim for benefits within the applicable time-limit, to adjourn the examination of his complaints in their entirety, save in respect of the complaint under Article 13;
Decides, in respect of the remaining applications, to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaints in connection with their claims for widows’ benefits relating to discrimination suffered by them during the period after the dates on which they lodged their relevant claims for widows’ benefits, set out in column 6 of the table;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of each application.
Michael O’BoyleMatti Pellonpää
RegistrarPresident
Application no 1454/02 and 23 others
LAWRENCE and Others v. the United Kingdom
1. Application no.
2. Date of
Intro
3. Name of Applicant
4. Date of Bereavement
5. Date of Initial Benefit Claim (if applicable)
6. Date of Relevant Benefit Claim
1454/02
21/11/01
LAWRENCE, Bonitto
07/03/01
N/A
28/06/01
25388/02
24/06/02
PAREKH, Ayub
18/07/00
N/A
17/04/01
25499/02
18/06/02
DONOHUE, John
24/06/84
N/A
18/07/01
27950/02
29/05/01
BALDWIN, Alan
08/01/00
Unspecified -shortly after death
05/01/01
27989/02
18/05/01
DUNWOODIE, William
13/04/95
N/A
18/11/00
28000/02
18/05/01
GREEN, Bob
02/09/89
Unspecified -shortly after death
12/12/00
28027/02
01/03/01
LEWIS, Maldwyn
04/09/97
N/A
18/9/00
28132/02
05/07/02
GRIFFITHS, Malcolm
26/02/98
N/A
18/02/02
30405/02
02/08/02
POVEY, John
27/02/01
N/A
25/05/01
1. Application no.
2. Date of Intro
3. Name of Applicant
4. Date of Bereavement
5. Date of Initial Benefit Claim (if applicable)
6. Date of Relevant Benefit Claim
35278/02
12/09/02
HERBERT, Ronald
18/08/99
September 1999
02/03/02
36951/02
02/10/02
RILEY, Joseph
04/11/74
November 1974
10/02/02
40748/02
07/10/02
GILBERT, William
08/01/91
Unspecified -shortly after death
before 02/04/02
42688/02
27/05/02
BEAUCHAMP, David
19/12/96
N/A
08/01
42689/02
27/05/02
CLARKE, James
18/04/99
N/A
19/12/01
42690/02
27/05/02
DIXON, Gordon
06/03/99
N/A
24/01/02
42691/02
27/05/02
FOSTER, Colin
03/09/00
11/09/00
01/05/01
42693/02
27/05/02
GODFREY, Richard
06/01/01
N/A
04/05/01
42694/02
27/05/02
HARTLEY, John
15/11/00
N/A
12/01
42696/02
27/05/02
LEADBETTER, Robert
04/02/87
N/A
27/02/02
1. Application no.
2. Date of Intro
3. Name of Applicant
4. Date of Bereavement
5. Date of Initial Benefit Claim (if applicable)
6. Date of Relevant Benefit Claim
42699/02
27/05/02
O’BRIEN, William
29/09/85
N/A
15/02/02
42702/02
27/05/02
RICKARDS, John
25/04/89
Unspecified -shortly after death
05/12/01
42703/02
27/05/02
RILEY, Brian
18/02/91
N/A
01/12/01
42707/02
27/05/02
TOWNLEY, John
08/02/91
N/A
11/01/02
42711/02
27/05/02
MITCHARD, St John
12/10/96
November 1996
03/01
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy