CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 30 avril 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s24C63AC { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sD7BB3222 { width:1.38pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s72A1204C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sDFFC13FB { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCED9EACD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s9C57A56F { width:204.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 12895/02 by William Hope Fowler CRILLY against the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30   April 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   M. Pellonpää , President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 26 September 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, William Hope Fowler Crilly, is a United Kingdom national, born in 1947 and living in Exmouth, Devon. He is represented before the Court by John Michael Warren Savage of Total Accounting Services of Truro, Cornwall. A.     The circumstances of the case The applicant’s wife died suddenly on 10 March 1997. The applicant has been a widower ever since. On 24 February 2000, the applicant’s representative made a formal claim for a bereavement tax allowance under section 262 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) on behalf of the applicant for the years 1996/7 and 1997/8. The Inland Revenue rejected the claim on 13   March 2000 on the ground that the applicant was not a woman. The applicant’s representative replied by letter on 16 March 2000, and again on 4 August 2000, arguing that the refusal was discriminatory and contrary to the Convention. The Inland Revenue responded on 11 August 2000, maintaining its decision to refuse the allowance. The applicant’s representative wrote also to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on whose behalf the Personal Tax Division of the Inland Revenue replied on 19   September 2000, confirming that the applicant, as a man, was not entitled to the allowance. If the applicant were a woman, he would have qualified under the 1988 Act for a tax deduction totally GBP 543.00 for the fiscal years 1996/7 and 1997/8. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Section 262(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 provides:   “Where a married man whose wife is living with him dies, his widow shall be entitled   – (a)   for the year of assessment in which the death occurs, to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to an amount equal to the amount specified in section 257A(1) for that year, and (b)   (unless she marries again before the beginning of it) for the next following year of assessment, to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to an amount equal to the amount specified in section 257A(1) for that year.” COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that British tax legislation discriminates against him on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He also complains that he has been discriminated against as compared with other men who have been paid sums equivalent to the bereavement tax allowance. He contends also that he has no effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW 1. The applicant complains that British tax legislation discriminates against him on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Article 14 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.”   2. The applicant also complains that he has been discriminated against as compared with other men who have been paid sums equivalent to the bereavement tax allowance. The Court notes that the men concerned have received those payments in friendly settlement of applications which have been communicated to the Government by this Court. The Court considers that the applicant in the present case is not in an analogous situation to those men and thus concludes that this aspect of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.         3. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the remainder of the application and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3(b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government. For these reasons, the Court unanimously   Declares inadmissible that part of the application complaining about discrimination as compared with other men who have been paid sums equivalent to the bereavement tax allowance;   Decides to adjourn the examination of the remainder of the application.   Michael O’Boyle   Matti Pellonpää   Registrar   President