FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF SZULC v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 63679/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 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 Szulc v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Stanislav
Pavlovschi,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and
Lawrence Early,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 18 March 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 63679/00) 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 Waldemar Szulc (“the applicant”) on 22
October 2000.
- 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.
- By a decision of 12 November 2002 the Court decided to
communicate the complaint concerning Widowed Mother's Allowance and
Widow's Bereavement Allowance and declared inadmissible the remainder
of the application. Subsequently, under the provisions of Article 29
§ 3 of the Convention, the President of the Chamber, to which
the case had been allocated, 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 1955 and lives in Leicester.
- His
wife died on 16 February 1996, leaving two children of ten and twelve
years of age respectively. His claim for widows' benefits was made on
9 February 1997 and was rejected on 18 February 1997 on the ground
that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a
woman. The applicant appealed and his claims were consistently
rejected up to the most recent decision dated 23 October 2000.
- On
an unspecified date 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”). After
various rejections, on 20 September 2000 the Inland Revenue confirmed
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 social security or
tax 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
judgments in the cases of Willis v. the United Kingdom, no.
36042/97, §§ 14 26, ECHR 2002-IV; and
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 OR ARTICLE 8 OF
THE CONVENTION.
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to
pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have
been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely
Widowed Mother's Allowance (“WMA”) and Widow's
Bereavement Allowance (“WBA”), 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
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 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).
B. Widow's Bereavement Allowance
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
(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 the Government
have not presented any facts or arguments 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.
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
- The
applicant claimed compound interest on the sums due for WMA and WBA,
at the relevant base rate in each year.
- The Government submitted that the calculation
including interest which would have been applicable to a woman
awaiting payment of benefits amounted to GBP 30,119.53, a sum which
had already been accepted and the cheque cleared by the applicant.
- 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) and
therefore the rate proposed and paid by the Government in the present
case, is the more realistic.
- In
these circumstances, the Court makes no award under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed GBP 2,250 for administrative charges in
relation to forty-five hours of work on his convention application
and GBP 25 for postage and incidental charges. Thus, he claimed
a total of GBP 2,275 in respect of costs and expenses.
-
The Government contested the claim on the basis of the Court's
jurisprudence.
- The
Court reiterates that only such costs and expenses as were actually
and necessarily incurred in connection with the violation or
violations found, and are reasonable as to quantum, are recoverable
under Article 41 (see, for example, Şahin v. Germany
[GC], no. 30943/96, § 105, ECHR 2003-VIII). It follows
that, in accordance with its case-law, even if the applicant had
indeed spent time working on the case, the Court cannot make an award
under this head, as this time would not represent monetary costs
actually incurred by him (see Buzescu v. Romania,
no. 61302/00, § 114, 24 May 2005, and Lehtinen
v. Finland (no. 2), no. 41585/98, § 57,
8 June 2006). As for the postage costs the Court rejects the
claim as the applicant has failed to prove that this sum had actually
been incurred.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Decides to declare admissible the remainder of
the application;
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;
3. 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 Widowed
Mother's Allowance;
4. 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 8 April 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
Registrar President
