CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 mars 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8CD1BA8C { width:6.58pt; display:inline-block } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s8A4FD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .sBF11BE31 { width:22.68pt; display:inline-block } .sD7042CE7 { width:20.01pt; display:inline-block } .s59505BDB { width:35.69pt; display:inline-block } .s1CEF510A { width:289.52pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application no. 47289/99 by Daryl Shaun ARKWELL against the United Kingdom       The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 March 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   J.-P. Costa, President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza,   Mr   L. Loucaides,   Mr   P. Kūris,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann,   Mrs   H.S. Greve,   Mr   K. Traja, judges , and   Mrs   S. Dollé, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 October 1998 and registered on 8 April 1999,     Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,   Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is a British national, born in 1957 and living in Gloucester. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   A.   Particular circumstances of the case     The applicant is a widower, his wife having died in March 1998. He cares for the two children of the marriage.     On 14 March 1998 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for the payment of social security benefits. He applied for benefits equivalent to those which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”).       By a letter dated 15 September 1998, the Benefits Agency informed the applicant that:   “There is currently no legislation which provides an equivalent to Widows’ Benefit for a widower ... . The UK currently provides only for Widows’ Benefit and clearly you cannot qualify for this benefit as you are a man. ...”   An appeal against such a decision would fail given that no social security benefits are payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.     The applicant receives Child Benefit at the rate of GBP 100 per month, together with a pension paid in respect of his late wife’s employment, at the rate of GBP 313 per month. His income precludes him from qualifying for means-tested benefits such as Income Support or Family Credit. A widow in a similar situation could claim Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance, which are payable regardless of income and savings. If the applicant were entitled to receive these social security benefits, he calculates that he would be GBP   83.55 a week better off. He would also have received a one-off Widow’s Payment of GBP   1,000.     B.   Relevant domestic law and practice     Under United Kingdom law, certain social security benefits, including Widow’s Payment, Widowed Mother’s Allowance, and Widow’s Pension, are paid for out of the National Insurance Fund. By Section 1 of the 1992 Act, the funds required for paying such benefits are to be provided by means of contributions payable to the Secretary of State for Social Security by earners, employers and others, together with certain additions made to the Fund by Parliament. Male and female earners are obliged to pay the same social security contributions in accordance with their status as employed earners or self-employed earners.   1.   Widow’s Payment     Under Section 36 of the 1992 Act, a woman who has been widowed is entitled to a widow’s payment (currently a lump sum payment of GBP 1,000) if:   (i)   she is under pensionable age at the time when her husband died, or he was not then entitled to a Category A retirement pension;   (ii)   her husband satisfied certain specified social security contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the 1992 Act.   2.   Widowed Mother’s Allowance     Under Section 37 of the 1992 Act, in so far as relevant, a woman who has been widowed (and who has not remarried) is entitled to a mother’s allowance on certain conditions, the following being the relevant conditions to the circumstance of the present case:   (i)   her husband satisfied the contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the Act; and   (ii)   she is entitled to receive child benefit in relation to a son or daughter of herself and her late husband.     The Widowed Mother’s Allowance currently amounts to GBP 62.45 per week, with an extra GBP 9.90 per week in respect of the eldest eligible child, and a further GBP 11.20 per week in respect of other children.   3.   Widow’s Pension     Under Section 38 of the 1992 Act, a woman who has been widowed (and who is not remarried) is entitled to a widow’s pension if:   (i)   her husband satisfied the contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the Act; and   (ii)   at the date of her husband’s death she was over the age of 45 but under the age of 65; or   (iii)   she ceased to be entitled to a widowed mother’s allowance at the time when she was over the age of 45 but under the age of 65.     If the applicant were a woman, he could look forward to entitlement to a Widow’s Pension in the future, when he would no longer be entitled to the Widowed Mother’s Allowance.   COMPLAINTS     The applicant complains that British social security legislation discriminates against him on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. PROCEDURE     The application was introduced on 2 October 1998 and registered on 8 April 1999.     On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.     On 11 May 1999, the Court decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government. By a letter dated 10 August 1999 the Government indicated that they did not intend to contest the admissibility of the application and accordingly would not submit any observations on admissibility.   THE LAW     The applicant complains that the lack of provision for widowers’ benefits under British social security legislation discriminates against him on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     Article 14 states:   “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 8 provides (so far 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 ... .”   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 states:   “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.”     The Court observes that the Government do not contest the admissibility of the application and have submitted no observations in this connection.     The Court considers that the application raises complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits. It concludes, therefore, that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.           S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President