EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 30548/96
Helen MacGregor
against
the United Kingdom
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 1 July 1998)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION1
PART I :STATEMENT OF THE FACTS3
PART II :SOLUTION REACHED5
INTRODUCTION
1.This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Helen MacGregor against the United Kingdom on 15 January 1996. It was registered on 22 March 1996 under file No. 30548/96.
2.The applicant was represented by Mr Luke Clements of Thorpes, solicitors, Hereford.
3.The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their Agent, Mr M.R. Eaton, of Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.
4.On 3 December 1997 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the application admissible . It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:
"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to it:
a.it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake together with the representatives of the parties an examination of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the Commission;
b.it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in this Convention."
5.The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 1 July 1998 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.
6.The following members were present when the Report was adopted:
MMM.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
MrsJ. LIDDY
MML. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIČ
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
MrsM. HION
MrR. NICOLINI
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
7.The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1970 and resident at Dorset.
8.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.
9.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.
10.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.
11.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."
12.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.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
13.Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.
14.In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
15.By letters of 24 December 1997 and 19 March 1998 the parties indicated their willingness, in principle, to reach a friendly settlement.
16.After an exchange of correspondence, the parties agreed that the application could be settled on payment by the Government to the applicant of a sum of £1,000 in respect of the income tax years 1994/95 to 1996/97, with relief for subsequent years being given through the tax system once the Finance Bill has been enacted. The parties further agreed on a sum of £4,406.25 to be paid by way of costs and expenses incurred in the matter.
17.At its session on 1 July 1998, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.
18.For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Secretary President
to the First Chamberof the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy