BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 63478/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 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 Williams 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,
Päivi
Hirvelä, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 December 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 63478/00) 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 Barry
Williams (“the applicant”) on 5 September 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.
- 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, 60274/00, 60940/00, 61019/00,
61394/00, 61398/00, 61781/00, 62966/00,
63471/00, 63476/00, 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 1957 and lives in Wirral.
- His
wife died on 6 December 1996, leaving three children born in 1986,
1989 and 1990. His second claim for widows' benefits was made on 23
May 2000 and was rejected on 1 June 2000 on the ground that he was
not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. On 26
July 2000 and 23 August 2000 the Benefits Agency confirmed the
applicant's lack of appeal rights. 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 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 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. Widowed Mother's Allowance
- 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 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).
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. Pecuniary damage
- In
respect of pecuniary damage the applicant claimed a total of
117,197.59 pounds sterling (GBP):
(i) GBP
7,961.96 for WMA payments from 29 February 2000 to 9 April 2001;
(ii) Christmas
bonus, GBP 30;
(iii) Interest
at 8% on the above amounts, namely, GBP 4,205.63;
(iv) GBP
105,000 for loss of pension (the financial constraints suffered,
forced the applicant to change employment and join a different
pension scheme).
- The
Government made no comment regarding the applicant's calculation of
WMA due. They further noted that the interest rate had already been
determined by the Court in the case of Runkee and White v. the
United Kingdom (nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, § 52, 25 July
2007). The Government contested the remaining claims as they were not
due to the applicant's failure to receive social security benefits
and added that other benefits were available to individuals in
specific need.
- The
Court observes that the Government did not contest the applicant's
calculation in respect of the WMA payable up to 9 April 2001 but
opposed his claim for interest.
- 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. It considers that the rate determined by the Court in the
case of Runkee and White (cited above, § 52)
should apply.
- In
these circumstances, and making an award on an equitable basis, the
Court awards compensation to the applicant of GBP 9,052
(approximately 13,040 euros) in respect of the refusal to grant him
WMA up to 9 April 2001 and interest on it. The Court further
considers that there is no causal link between the remaining
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 11,000 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 find it established that the applicant was caused
real and serious emotional damage as a result of being denied the
benefit in question. No award can accordingly be made under this
head.
C. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed GBP 3,974.74 in respect of costs and expenses,
inclusive of value added tax (“VAT”).
- The
Government contested the claim, which they believed was excessive for
a straightforward case. They 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 the issues concerning
WMA were established 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 the applicant's non-entitlement to a Widowed Mother's
Allowance;
- Holds that it is not necessary to consider the
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
13,040 (thirteen thousand and forty 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 amounts 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 8 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Josep Casadevall
Deputy
Registrar President
