AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 30548/96
by Helen MacGREGOR
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 3 December 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs J. LIDDY, President
MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs M. HION
Mr R. NICOLINI
Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 15 January 1996
by Helen MacGREGOR against the United Kingdom and registered on
22 March 1996 under file No. 30548/96;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the respondent Government's letter of 1 August 1997 and the
applicant's reply of 13 August 1997;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, a British citizen, born in 1970, lives at Dorset.
She is a veterinary nurse. Before the Commission, she is represented
by Mr. Luke Clements of Thorpes Solicitors, Hereford.
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
The applicant, after her marriage in December 1994, reduced her
working hours in order to be able to devote more attention to her son,
who was then four years old, and her husband, a wheelchair user
severely disabled after an accident.
The applicant did so in the anticipation that her loss of income
would be compensated by reduced taxation in the form of an increased
income tax allowance, the additional personal allowance, awarded to tax
paying workers with young children, whose spouses are totally
incapacitated.
The applicant expected to be able to claim this additional
personal allowance by virtue of Section 259 of the Income and
Corporation Taxes Act 1988. By notification dated 13 March 1995 the
applicant was advised that her tax coding included the additional
personal allowance at the current rate of £1,720.00 per annum.
However, this allowance was then rescinded by a notice of the Inland
Revenue dated 23 March 1995.
The applicant appealed against this decision. By letter of
27 September 1995 the Inland Revenue stated that:
"... the Government's ruling is still that the additional
personal allowance is not to be extended to women with
incapacitated husbands. ...
The arrangement whereby a married man with children whose
wife is totally incapacitated is able to claim the
additional personal allowance whereas a wife in similar
circumstances cannot has its roots in a time when Social
Security provision for the disabled was much less
comprehensive than it is now. Up to 1960 married men with
incapacitated wives qualified for the housekeeper allowance
available to widows and widowers. That allowance was
introduced nearly 70 years ago to meet the situation where
a female relative or other person - usually a female -
living in the home of a widow or widower was employed
either to take care of young children or as a resident
housekeeper.
When the additional personal allowance was introduced in
1960 for those with single handed responsibility for
children it was extended - in place of the housekeeper
allowance - to married men with dependent children whose
wives were totally incapacitated. It was considered at the
time that a wife who was wholly incapacitated was not able
to play an active part in looking after the home and
children. ...
It is recognised that the thinking behind the provision may
well be regarded anachronistic, particularly in view of the
introduction of independent taxation of husbands and wives.
Indeed the housekeeper allowance and some other minor
allowances were abolished in 1988 largely because they were
out of tune with modern society. At the time the
Government considered whether this aspect of the additional
personal allowance should be abolished since its main
purpose has in any case been largely superseded by the
development of the Social Security system which is regarded
as a better vehicle than reliefs for delivering cash
assistance to those with special needs."
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that as a result of the application of
Section 259 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, she has been
a victim of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together
with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She maintains that if she was male,
she would be entitled to be exempted from part of her income tax, but
because she is female she is not. She claims that there is no
justification for this discriminatory treatment based on sex.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 15 January 1996 and registered
on 22 March 1996.
On 9 April 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government.
The Government, on 1 August 1997, after an extension of the time-
limit fixed for the submission of observations, informed the Commission
that they were content not to contest the admissibility of the
application and did not propose to submit written observations on
admissibility, but would reserve their position on the merits. The
applicant noted the Government's position by her letter of
13 August 1997.
On 28 October 1997 the Commission granted the applicant legal
aid.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that as a result of the application of
Section 259 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, she has been
a victim of a discriminatory treatment based on sex which is in breach
of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (Art. 14+P1-1).
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) provides as follows:
"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.
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 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention provides as follows:
"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."
The respondent Government have made no submission on
admissibility and have reserved their position with regard to the
merits. The applicant has noted the Government's position and has not
submitted any written observations concerning admissibility of the
application.
The Commission considers that the application raises complex
issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which
should depend on an examination of the merits of the application as a
whole. The Commission concludes, therefore, that these complaints are
not manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring them
inadmissible have been established.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the
merits of the case.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy