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 GEEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 63468/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 December
2007
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 Geen 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,
Ms L. Mijović,
judges,
and Mrs F. Araci, Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 63468/00) 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 David
Nigel Geen (“the applicant”) on 29 September 2000.
- 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 8 April 2003 the Court declared the application partly
admissible.
- By
a judgment of 25 July 2007 the Court decided, inter alia, to
adjourn Mr Geen's complaint about non-entitlement to a Widow's
Pension.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Maidenhead.
- His
wife died on 17 October 1995. There were three children of the
marriage, born on 18 November 1987, 22 August 1989 and 22 April 1992.
On 30 May 2000 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for
survivor's benefits. He was refused by a letter dated 5 June 2000.
The applicant did not appeal 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
domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and
White v. the United Kingdom, nos. 42949/98 and
53134/99, 25 July 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 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
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...”
- The
Court considers that the applicant's complaint about the non-payment
of WP falls within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Stec
and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos.
65731/01 and 65900/01, § 54, ECHR 2006- ...). Since
Article 14 therefore applies, it is not necessary to examine
separately whether the complaint also raises an issue under Article
14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see also Willis v. the
United Kingdom, § 53, ECHR 2002-IV). In reality the Article
8 complaint is a mere restatement of the complaint linked to Article
1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
Court notes that the applicant's children are now 17 and 19 years of
age, and it is possible that a woman in his position would have
ceased to be entitled to Widowed Mother's Allowance and become
entitled to a Widow's Pension.
- However,
the Court has previously examined cases raising issues similar to
those in the present case and found no violation of Article 14 of the
Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see
Runkee and White, cited above, § 42).
- 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. It recalls in this connection that in
its Runkee and White judgment the Court concluded that 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
(ibid § 40).
- There
has accordingly been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention
taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 in connection with the applicant's complaint
concerning non-entitlement to a Widow's Pension;
- 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 Pension.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 December 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Josep Casadevall
Deputy
Registrar President
