FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
19 applications against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 October 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the applications;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A. The circumstances of the case
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 GBP 1,000) 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;
(ii) her husband satisfied certain specified social security contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the 1992 Act.
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 currently amounts 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 is 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
The time-limits for claiming Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance are set out in the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (“the 1987 Regulations”)(as amended), regulation 19 of which provides:
“(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 apply to all widows’ benefits claims made as of 7 April 1997, regardless of the date of bereavement.
5. The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999
The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act (“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 and/or tax legislation is discriminatory on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant in application no. 69324/01 complains also under Article 6 of the Convention about the dismissal of his appeals against the refusal of widows’ benefits. The applicant in application no. 77426/01 complains also under Article 5 of Protocol No. 7. Certain of the applicants invoke Article 13 of the Convention.
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, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. All applicants complain of a continuing violation from their wives’ deaths on the dates set out at column 5 of the table attached.
Article 14 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 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.”
The applicants’ complaints each relate to two unsuccessful benefit claims. However, the Court notes that, in respect of the “first” claim in each case, the date of which is set out at column 6 of the table attached, the final domestic decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention was reached 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 claims, have been submitted too late and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
In respect of the “second” claim in each case, the date of which is set out at column 7 of the table attached, 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, the Buckley v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1288, §§ 56-59 and the Valmont v. the United Kingdom decision of 23 March 1999, unpublished). In the present cases, during the period between their wives’ deaths, on the dates set out at column 5 of the table attached, and the dates on which they lodged their “second” claims for widow’s benefits, as set out at column 7 of the table attached, the applicants cannot be said to have been directly affected by the discrimination of which they complain in relation to that “second” claim, since a woman in the same position who had made no claim for widows’ benefits would have had no entitlement to widows’ benefits under domestic law. In particular she would have had no entitlement to a Widow’s Payment, which must, since 7 April 1997, be applied for within three months of the death.
It follows that, for the period between their wives’ deaths and the dates on which they lodged their “second” claims for widows’ benefits, the applicants cannot claim to have been victims of a violation of their rights under the Convention and First Protocol, and that the applications, insofar 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.
2. The applicants in applications nos. 73620/01, 73621/01 and 4886/02 complain also that their non-entitlement to a Bereavement Tax Allowance under British tax legislation is discriminatory on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, the Court notes from column 7 of the table attached that the final domestic decision, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, refusing the Allowance was reached more than six months before the date on which those applications were submitted to the Court. It follows that these applications, so far as they relate to Bereavement Tax Allowance, have been submitted too late and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
3. The applicants in applications nos. 61391/00, 61921/00, 63479/00, 65477/01, 67095/01, 67777/01, 71561/01, 72666/01, 73620/01, 73621/01, 78114/01, 4886/02, 10170/02 and 15342/02 complain also about discrimination suffered by their late wives in respect of the decisions to refuse widows’ benefits and/or Bereavement Tax Allowance. However, the Court does not accept that, in respect of any discrimination which may have been suffered by those applicants’ late wives, the applicants concerned can claim to be a victim of the alleged violation. It follows that this aspect of the applications 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.
4. The applicants in applications nos. 61391/00, 61921/00, 63479/00, 65477/01, 67095/01, 67777/01, 71561/01, 72666/01, 73620/01, 73621/01, 77426/01, 78114/01 and 4886/02 also invoke Article 13 of the Convention.
Article 13 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.”
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, 21.05.2002, unreported, § 62). It follows that this aspect of the applications concerned is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
5. The applicant in application no. 69324/01 complains also under Article 6 about the dismissal of his appeals against the refusal of widows’ benefits.
Article 6 provides (as relevant):
“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...”
The Court recalls that it is not a court of appeal from the domestic courts and cannot intervene to investigate allegations that they have reached the wrong decision (see, for example, application no. 45738/99 Bullivant v. the United Kingdom, admissibility decision of 28 March 2000, unreported). It follows that this aspect of application no. 69324/01 is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
6. The applicant in application no. 77426/01 invokes Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 (equality between spouses). However, the Court notes that the United Kingdom has not to date ratified that Protocol. It follows that this aspect of application no. 77426/01 is 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.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the remainder of each complaint 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 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 “second” claims for widows’ benefits;
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaints, in applications nos. 61391/00, 63479/00 and 65477/00, of discrimination suffered by them in connection with their claims for Bereavement Tax Allowance;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of each application.
Michael O’BoyleMatti Pellonpää
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy