[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF HIGHAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 64735/01)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 January
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 Higham. v. the United Kingdom,
The European Court of Human Rights
(Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall,
President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Kristaq Traja,
Stanislav
Pavlovschi,
Ján Šikuta,
Paivï Hirvelä, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 64735/01) 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 John
Higham (“the applicant”) on 24 October 2000. Having
originally been designated by the initials J.H., the applicant
subsequently agreed to the disclosure of his name.
- The
applicant was unrepresented. The United Kingdom Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley
of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to
grant him Widow's Bereavement Allowance or equivalent constituted
discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the
Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- By
a partial decision of 4 December 2001 the Court decided to
communicate the complaint concerning Widow's Bereavement Allowance
and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. It also
decided to join this application to other applications (nos.
60525/00,
60933/00, 60937/00, 60944/00, 61038/00, 61388/00,
61949/00, 62776/00, 63388/00, 63464/00, 63469/00, 63470/00, 63473/00,
63474/00, 63584/00, 63645/00, 63701/00, 63702/00, and 65723/01). By a
decision of 26 August 2003 the Court declared the remainder of the
application admissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Blackpool.
- His
wife died on 7 September 1997. On 19 July 2000 the applicant made a
claim to the Inland Revenue requesting an allowance equivalent to
that received by a widow, namely Widow's Bereavement Allowance
(“WBA”). On 16 August 2000 the Inland Revenue informed
him that he was ineligible for WBA as he was not a woman. The
applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that
such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such allowance was
granted to widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law and practice are described in the Court's
judgment in the case of Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00,
63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN
IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to
grant him WBA or equivalent constituted discrimination on grounds of
sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction
with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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.”
- 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
(Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and
Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and
63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007, §§ 53-54).
- 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 WBA, of which the applicant was a victim, was not based on any
“objective and reasonable justification” (see Hobbs,
cited above, § 53).
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention
taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. 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
- On
10 April 2007 the Registry requested the applicant to confirm by 16
May 2007 whether a friendly settlement had been reached following the
decision in Hobbs, Richard,
Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom (cited above) and if not to
submit claims under Article 41 of the Convention. The applicant did
not reply, and he did not request an extension of time. On 17 July
2007 the applicant submitted his claim for non pecuniary damage. He
requested 1,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for suffering and distress.
- Even assuming the applicant had submitted his claims
within the time-limit allowed, the Court does not accept that he was
caused real and serious emotional damage as a result of being denied
a tax allowance of the relatively low value of the WBA (ibid §
72). No award can accordingly be made under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
-
The applicant made no claim under this head.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Decides to disjoin the application from the
others to which it was joined;
- 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
Bereavement Allowance;
- Dismisses the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
