[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF WOODS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 60274/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
November 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Woods v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr J. Casadevall,
President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr G.
Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L.
Garlicki,
Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr
T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 60274/00) against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr
Humphrey Wood (“the applicant”) on 9 June 2000.
- The applicant was represented before the Court by
Pierce Glynn Solicitors, London. The
United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, London.
- The
applicant complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because he was a man, he was denied
social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.
- By a partial decision of 15 January 2002 the Court
decided to communicate this application, and to join it to other
applications (nos. 58370/00, 60940/00, 61019/00, 61394/00,
61398/00, 61781/00, 62966/00,
63471/00, 63476/00, 63478/00, 63481/00, 63507/00).
- On
6 May 2003, after obtaining the parties' observations, the Court
declared this application admissible in so far as the complaint
concerned Widowed Mother's Allowance as from the date of the
applicant's second claim and declared the remainder of the
application inadmissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Bristol.
- His
wife died on 27 November 1990, leaving one child born in 1990. His
second claim for widows' benefits was made in October 1999 and was
rejected on 12 January 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to
widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not
appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be
bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to
widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's
judgment in the case of Willis v. the United Kingdom, no.
36042/97, §§ 14 26, ECHR 2002-IV.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN
IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 AND/OR 8 OF THE
CONVENTION.
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to
pay him the social security benefit to which he would have been
entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widowed
Mother's Allowance (“WMA”), constituted discrimination
against him on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the
Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
and/or Article 8 of the Convention.
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
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
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...”
- The
Court has previously examined cases raising issues similar to those
in the present case and found a violation of Article 14 of the
Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see
Willis, cited above, §§ 41-43).
- The
Court has examined the present case and finds that the Government
have not presented any facts or arguments which would lead to a
different conclusion in this instance. Therefore the Court considers
that the difference in treatment between men and women as regards
entitlement to WMA, of which the applicant was a victim, was not
based on any “objective and reasonable justification”
(see Willis, cited above, § 42).
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention
taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
Court, having concluded that there has been a breach of Article 14
of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 as regards the applicant's non-entitlement to WMA, does not
consider it necessary to examine his complaints in that regard under
Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see Willis,
cited above, § 53).
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Pecuniary damage
- In
respect of pecuniary damage the applicant claimed a total of
127,804.14 British pounds sterling (GBP):
(i) GBP
15,277.60 for WMA payments from 14 July 1998 to 9 April 2001;
(ii) Christmas
bonus, GBP 30;
(iii) Interest
at a rate of 8% on the above amounts, namely, GBP 8,444.54;
(iv) GBP
87,550 for loss of income from July 1998 to July 2007;
(v) GBP
8,500 for extra costs of works to his house;
(vi) GBP
8,002 for loss of annuity and pension;
-
The Government submitted that GBP 18,023.76 covering the amount of
WMA due and including GBP 3,218.51 in respect of interest would be
adequate compensation. The Government submitted that the Court should
apply the same interest rates as applied by the Department of Work
and Pensions when, exceptionally, a welfare claimant had lost the use
of a sum of money as a result of a departmental error. These rates,
based on the yearly Average Retail Shares and Deposits rate supplied
by the Building Societies Commission, varied from 4.881%, being the
highest, in 1998–1999, and 2.691%, being the lowest, in
2003-2004. The Government contested the remaining claims as they were
not due to the applicant's failure to receive social security
benefits.
- The
Court notes that the applicant's claim has been declared admissible
only in so far as it relates to his second claim for WMA in October
1999, and, therefore, in view of the three-month interval, the
applicant is entitled to WMA payments from July 1999.
- The
Court considers that the interest rate applied, which is intended to
compensate for loss of value of the award over time, should reflect
national economic conditions, such as levels of inflation and rates
of interest available to investors nationally during the relevant
period and it considers that the rate proposed by the Government is
the more realistic (see Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom,
nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, judgment of 25 July 2007, § 52).
- In
these circumstances, the Court awards the applicant GBP 18,023.76
(approximately 26,000 euros) which covers both the amount due in WMA
and interest on it.
- The
Court further considers that there is no causal link between the
remaining heads of pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant and the
violation found in the present case (see Central Mediterranean
Development Corporation Limited v. Malta, no. 35829/03, §
58, 24 October 2006). It therefore makes no award in respect of those
claims.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
- The
applicant claimed GBP 10,125 for the hurt and distress caused by the
alleged violation.
-
The Government contested the claim on the basis of the Court's
jurisprudence.
- The
Court does not accept that he was caused any particular moral
damage as a result of being denied the benefit in question. No
award is accordingly made under this head.
C. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed GBP 3,387.23 in respect of costs and expenses,
inclusive of value added tax (“VAT”).
- The
Government contested the claim, which it believed was excessive. It
submitted that the figure of GBP 2,000 inclusive of VAT would
suffice.
- The
Court reiterates that only legal costs and expenses found to have
been actually and necessarily incurred and which are reasonable as to
quantum are recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see,
among other authorities, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no.
31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II). On the basis of the information
in its possession and taking into account that all relevant issues
concerning WMA were addressed in Willis, the Court awards the
applicant EUR 2,500 for legal costs and expenses, in addition to any
VAT that may be payable.
D. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Decides
to disjoin
the application from the others to which it was joined;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the
Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
concerning non-entitlement to a Widowed Mother's Allowance;
- Holds that it is not necessary to consider that
complaint under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction
with Article 8;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts to be converted into the national currency of the respondent
State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
26,000 (twenty-six thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and
expenses;
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
