[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF STEFF v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 63476/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
November 2007
This judgment in so
far as it concerns point 1 of the operative part 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 Steff 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. 63476/00) 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 Neil
Steff (“the applicant”), on 26 September 2000.
- The applicant was represented before the Court by Ms P.
Glynn, a solicitor practising in London. The United Kingdom
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
- 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 and tax benefits equivalent to those received by
widows.
- By
a partial decision of 15 January 2002 the Court decided to
communicate this application. On 6 May 2003, after obtaining the
parties’ observations, the Court declared the application
admissible in so far as the complaint concerned Widowed Mother’s
Allowance and Widow’s Bereavement Allowance and declared the
remainder of the application inadmissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Hertfordshire.
- The
applicant’s wife died on 9 February 1999, leaving two children,
born in 1987 and 1992. On 11 May 2000 the applicant applied for
widow’s benefits. By a letter dated 15 May 2000, the Benefits
Agency informed him that it was unable to pay him any of the benefits
claimed because he was not a woman.
- On
6 June 2000 the applicant applied for an allowance under the Income
and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 on the same basis as he would receive
it if he were a widow whose husband died in similar circumstances. He
only received a letter of reply on 25 July 2000.
- The
applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that
such a remedy would be bound to fail since no social security or tax
benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Willis v.
the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 14-26, ECHR
2002-IV and Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00 (BAILII: [2006] ECHR 976 ],
63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, 26 March 2007.
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 British social security and tax legislation
discriminated against him on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14
of the Convention taken in conjunction both Article 8 of the
Convention and/or 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.”
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 Bereavement Allowance
-
The applicant submitted that in 2002 he accepted the Government’s
offer of compensation amounting to 742.95 pounds sterling (“GBP”)
which however did not include interest and did not contain an
acceptance that there had been a violation of his rights.
- The
Government submitted that the payment of monies to the applicant was
made as a result of provisions of United Kingdom domestic law of
general application, which were quite unrelated to the question
raised under the Convention by this complaint. The offer and eventual
repayment of the sum equivalent to Widow’s Bereavement
Allowance (“WBA”) had been made to the applicant solely
because of an administrative error on the part of the Inland Revenue.
- The
Government submitted that there was no reason why the applicant
should have made an application to the Court and remained of the view
that the complaint was inadmissible.
- The
Court notes that the applicant received and accepted the same amount
in repayment as he would have received in WBA as a consequence of
administrative errors ensuing from his claim.
- In
these circumstances, the applicant cannot claim to be directly
affected by the alleged discrimination between men and women or to be
a victim of a violation of the Convention.
- Accordingly,
the Court finds that there has been no violation of any of the
Articles relied on in respect of his complaint regarding WBA.
B. Widowed Mother’s Allowance
- 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.
- By
a letter of 11 May 2005 the respondent Government informed the Court
that the House of Lords had decided, in relation to the claims for
Widowed Mother’s Allowance (WMA) and Widow’s Payment
(WPt), that there was in principle no objective justification at the
relevant time for not paying these benefits to widowers as well as
widows, but that the Government had a defence under section 6 of the
Human Rights Act 1998 (the HRA). It noted that, in view of this, the
multitude of cases before the Court and the fact that the HRA defence
was only applicable in the domestic arena, the Government were
prepared, in principle, to settle all claims made by widowers against
the United Kingdom arising out of the arrangements applicable prior
to April 2001 for the payment of WMA and WPt.
- By
a letter of 15 May 2006 the applicant’s legal representatives
informed the Court that Mr Steff had been offered GBP 6,589.14 in
respect of his claims for WMA and that he had accepted payment.
- The
Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties
(Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement
is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and
its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention
and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
- Accordingly
this complaint should be struck out of the list of cases.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention and/or Article 8 of the Convention in relation to the
complaint concerning Widow’s Bereavement Allowance;
2. Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of
its list of cases.
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
