CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 janvier 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 126 January 2010 Zubczewski v. Sweden (dec.) - 16149/08 Decision 12.1.2010 [Section III] Article 14 Discrimination Alleged discrimination in amount of pension payable to married persons: inadmissible   Facts – Following the applicant’s marriage, his supplementary pension was reduced by approximately EUR   50 in accordance with the domestic law. He appealed against that decision, claiming that since his wife did not have any income he had to support two people. His appeal was, however, dismissed. Law – Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1: The Court reiterated that States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in implementing general measures of economic or social strategy. The Swedish legislature had established different pension levels for different categories of persons based on the broad principle that the cost of living for two people sharing a home was generally lower that for one person living alone. Despite the applicant’s contention that his situation was exceptional since his wife had no income, the Court considered that the legislation and the decisions based thereon fell within the State’s margin of appreciation. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes