[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF CUMMINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 14549/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 April
2008
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 Cummins v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Lech
Garlicki,
President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Stanislav
Pavlovschi,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 11 March 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 14549/02) 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 Rodney
Cummins (“the applicant”) on 6 March 2002.
- The
applicant was unrepresented before the Court. 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 12 November 2002 the Court decided to
communicate the complaints concerning widows’ benefits and
declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. Subsequently,
it was decided to examine the merits of the application at the same
time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Gosport.
- His
wife died on 29 March 2001. His claim for widows’ benefits was
made on 29 June 2001 and was rejected on 31 December 2001 on the
ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he
was not a woman. The applicant appealed. On 7 May 2002 his appeal was
heard and dismissed. The applicant did not appeal further 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 ARTICLE 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
Widow’s Payment (“Wpt”) and Widow’s Pension
(“WP”), 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...”
A. Widow’s Payment
1. Admissibility
- The
Court finds that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, or inadmissible
on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
- 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 there are no facts
or arguments from the Government which would lead to any different
conclusion in this instance. Therefore the Court considers that the
difference in treatment between men and women as regards entitlement
to Wpt, 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 Wpt, does not
consider it necessary to examine his complaints in that regard under
Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8.
B. Widow’s Pension
1. Admissibility
- The
Court held in its lead judgment regarding WP that at its origin, and
until its abolition in respect of women whose spouses died after
9 April 2001, WP was intended to correct “factual
inequalities” between older widows, as a group, and the rest of
the population and that this difference in treatment was reasonably
and objectively justified. Moreover, the Court considered that the
United Kingdom could not be criticised for not having abolished WP
earlier and that it was not unreasonable of the legislature to decide
to introduce the reform slowly (see Runkee and White v. the United
Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§
40-41, 25 July 2007). The Court, consequently, considering it was not
necessary to examine separately the complaint in respect of Article
8, did not find a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the non-payment to the
applicants of Widow’s Pension or equivalent (ibid
§ 42).
- Consequently,
the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
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. Damage
- In
respect of pecuniary damage the applicant claimed the amount due in
respect of WP.
- The
Court has found no violation in respect of the complaint regarding
WP. It therefore rejects this claim.
C. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit any claims under this head.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Decides to declare admissible the complaint
relating to the applicant’s non-entitlement to a Widow’s
Payment and inadmissible the remainder of the application;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 concerning the applicant’s non-entitlement to a Widow’s
Payment;
- Holds that it is not necessary to examine
separately the complaint under Article 14 in conjunction with Article
8 of the Convention as concerns the applicant’s non-entitlement
to a Widow’s Payment;
- Dismisses the applicant’s claim for
just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 April 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Lech
Garlicki
Registrar President
