CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 novembre 1990

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }    AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application No. 17256/90 by Joseph BURNS against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 November 1990, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                      J.C. GEUS                      A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                      M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 4 June 1990 by Joseph BURNS against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 October 1990 under file No. 17256/90;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:           The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom born in 1924 and resident in Southampton.           The applicant complains on behalf of himself and his wife that they are unable to receive a State pension for his wife because she is paid an Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) to look after their 22 year old daughter who suffers from Down's Syndrome.   The reason for this was explained as follows by the Department of Social Security in a letter dated 10 January 1990 to the applicant's Member of Parliament:-           "We full recognise the valuable contribution made by carers         who devotedly care for a severely disabled relative at home.         However, I must confirm that a retirement pensioner cannot         receive ICA in addition to her retirement pension.         Retirement pension is intended to provide a sum for basic         weekly maintenance.   It allows a person who so wishes to         give up full time work and retire.   ICA is also an income         maintenance benefit intended to help meet the needs of a         person unable to undertake employment because they are         caring for someone.   Rules preventing the duplicate payment         of benefits intended for the same purpose have been a         feature of our Social Security scheme since it began.           From the scheme's inception in 1948, all flat rate National         Insurance benefits were designed to provide income maintenance         when a particular contingency catered for under the scheme         arises, for example sickness, unemployment, widowhood and         the reaching of pension age.   This also applies to benefits         introduced since then such as ICA.   It has never been the         intention that when a person is entitled to more than one         benefit at the same time, the benefits should be added         together.   Since, as I have said, each benefit fulfils the         same purpose, paying one on top of another would mean over         provision from public funds.   The overlapping benefit rules         apply to all people who qualify for more than one income         maintenance benefit at the same time, not just pensioners.           Mr.   Burns contrasts the position of a pensioner who is now         able to have unlimited earnings, with a pensioner who is         unable to work because she is a carer, yet cannot also         receive ICA.   There is a difference, however, between         disregarding earnings which are not payable from public         funds and allowing duplicate payment of benefit."           The applicant does not make a claim to be a victim of a specific violation of the Convention, but states that the State's policy is unjust in view of the difficult task involved in caring for his daughter and the fact that he had to contribute throughout his working life to the State pension scheme.           The Commission has examined the applicant's complaint but finds that the case, as it has been submitted, does not raise an issue under any Convention right or freedom.   In particular, it finds that the applicant cannot make a claim under the Convention in the circumstances of his case that he and his wife are entitled to the accumulated payment of his wife's State pension and the ICA. Accordingly the application must be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission unanimously           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission                (H.C. KRÜGER)                             (C.A. NØRGAARD)