FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 65905/01
by Alan John RICE
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 February 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrsE. Palm,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrS. Pavlovschi, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 4 December 2000 and registered on 12 February 2001,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Alan John Rice, is a United Kingdom national, born in 1957 and living in Bebington. He is represented before the Court by Mr Robinson of Bebington Citizens Advice Bureau. The respondent Government are represented by Mr C.A. Whomersley, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant and his wife were married in 1980 and had one child, born in 1991. The applicant’s wife died on 13 February 2000.
In June 2000 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for the payment of social security benefits. He applied for benefits equivalent to those which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of 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 (“the 1992 Act”). He was informed on 26 June 2000 that the Benefits Agency was unable to accept his application as a valid claim because the regulations governing the payment of widows’ benefits were specific to women. He was told that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered.
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 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 (currently 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 case:
(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 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:
(i) her husband satisfied the contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the Act; and
(ii) at the date of her husband’s death she was over the age of 45 but under the age of 65; or
(iii) 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.
If the applicant were a woman, he could look forward to entitlement to a Widow’s Pension in the future, when he would no longer be entitled to the Widowed Mother’s Allowance.
4. Time-limit for applications for benefits
Throughout the period in question, the time-limits for claiming Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance were set out in the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (Statutory Instrument 1987/1968), regulation 19 (as amended) of which provided:
“(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;(...)”
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 is 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 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 applicant complains that United Kingdom social security legislation discriminates against him and his late wife on grounds of his sex and thus violates Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the lack of provision for widowers’ benefits under United Kingdom social security legislation discriminates against him 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.
Article 14 states:
“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 states:
“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 Government submit that the “final decision” to which the applicant’s complaints relate was that contained in the Benefits Agency’s letter of 26 June 2000 and that the application was thus submitted outside the six month time-limit laid down by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court notes that the applicant’s complaints were introduced on 4 December 2000, less than six months after the Benefits Agency by letter referred to by the Government. It thus concludes that the application was submitted in accordance with the time-limit set by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
However, the Court recalls that under Article 34 of the Convention it may only 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 case, during the period between his wife’s death on 13 February 2000 and his application for widows’ benefits in June 2000, the applicant cannot be said to have been directly affected by the discrimination of which he complains, since a woman in the same position who had made no claim would have had no entitlement to widows’ benefits under domestic law (see Cornwell v. the United Kingdom, application no. 36578/97, decision of 11 May 1999, unreported). In particular she would have had no entitlement to a Widow’s Payment.
It follows that for the period 13 February 2000 to June 2000 the applicant cannot claim to have been a victim of a violation of his rights under the Convention and First Protocol, and that the application, insofar as it relates to this period, 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 applicant complains also about discrimination suffered by his late wife in respect of the decision to refuse him widows’ benefits. However, the Court does not accept that, in respect of any discrimination which may have been suffered by the applicant’s late wife, the applicant can claim to be a victim of the alleged violation. It follows that this aspect of the complaint 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.
The Court considers that the remainder of the application raises complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits. It concludes, therefore, that the remainder of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring those parts of the application inadmissible have been established.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, that part of the application concerning discrimination alleged to have been suffered by the applicant during the period after his claim for widows’ benefits in June 2000;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Michael O’BoyleMatti Pellonpää Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy