CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } Communicated on 12 February 2021 Published on 1 March 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 8786/20 L.T. against the United Kingdom and five other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the Government’s policy of providing thirty hours per week of free childcare to three-year-old and four-year-old children of working parents but only fifteen hours per week of free childcare to three-year-old and four-year-old children of non-working parents. The free childcare is generally provided in formal educational settings such as nurseries and pre-schools. The applicants are three lone parents and their three young children. Two of the parents are full-time carers for disabled relatives and the third is a victim of domestic violence who, at the relevant time, resided in a women’s refuge. They argue that failing to provide thirty hours of free childcare in their circumstances amounted to discriminatory treatment.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been treated differently from other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation in the enjoyment of their Convention rights due to their “other status”, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 8 and/or Article 2 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention?   2.     If so, was there an objective and reasonable justification for that difference in treatment, namely did it pursue a legitimate aim and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised?   In particular, what test should the Court apply in determining whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised in the present case (see J.D. and A   v.   the United Kingdom , nos.   32949/17 and 34614/17, §§ 89 and 97, 24   October 2019)?         APPENDIX     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1 8786/20 L.T. v. the United Kingdom 05/02/2020 2015 London British Hopkin Murray Beskine 2 10818/20 G.W. v. the United Kingdom 05/02/2020 1993 London British 3 10833/20 F.L. v. the United Kingdom 05/02/2020 1991 London British 4 10974/20 R.S. v. the United Kingdom 05/02/2020 2015 London British 5 10984/20 F.B. v. the United Kingdom 05/02/2020 1983 Birmingham British 6 13123/20 A.H. v. the United Kingdom 05/02/2020 2016 Birmingham British