CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 octobre 2020

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 249 March 2021 B. v. Switzerland (referral) - 78630/12 Judgment 20.10.2020 [Section III] Article 14 Discrimination Termination, when youngest child reaches adulthood, of pension entitlement for surviving parent with full-time childcare responsibilities where the beneficiary is a man: case referred to the Grand Chamber Following the death of his wife, the applicant left his employment to look after their two young children and was paid a “widower’s pension” on that account as provided for by the Federal Law on Old-Age and Survivors’ Insurance. Pursuant to that law, his pension was terminated when his younger daughter reached the age of majority in 2010. The applicant’s challenge on gender discrimination grounds, the law making no provision for a similar restriction where the beneficiary was a woman, was unsuccessful. In a judgment of 20 October 2020 (see Legal Summary ), a Chamber of the Court, held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 8. Having first considered the general purpose of a widows’ or widower’s pension and the tangible repercussions it had had on the applicant’s family life, it found that his complaint fell within the scope of Article 8 and, accordingly, that Article 14 was applicable, in conjunction with that provision. It then ruled that the applicant had suffered unequal treatment vis-a-vis a widow in the same situation and that the Government had failed to provide any reasonable justification for this. On 8 March 2021 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   © 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