CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 9 mars 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s6F57788 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA8C2B9B0 { width:20.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   114 9.3.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING HEPPLE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 9 March 2005 at 9 a.m., in the case of Hepple and Others v. the United Kingdom (application nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01).   The applicants   The applicants, all United Kingdom nationals, are: Regina Hepple, born in 1933 and living in Wakefield; Anna Stec, born in 1933 and living in Stoke-on-Trent; Patrick Lunn, born in 1923 and living in Stockton-on-Tees; Sybil Spencer, born in 1926 and living in Bury; and, Oliver Kimber, born in 1924 and living in Pevensey.   Summary of the facts   The applicants all complain about sex-based differences in eligibility for reduced earnings allowance (REA) and retirement allowance (RA), which are earnings-related benefits payable to employed or formerly employed people who have suffered an impairment of earning capacity from a work-related injury or disease.   Before 1986 there was a continued right to REA, which was payable concurrently with the State pension. From 1986 a succession of legislative measures attempted to remove or reduce the REA being received by claimants no longer of working age, by imposing cut-off or limiting conditions at 65 for men and 60 for women (the ages used by the statutory old-age pension scheme) until 1996, tapering up to eventual equality at 65 in 2020. The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 brought in new provisions [1] which treated male and female REA recipients differently according to their circumstances prior to 10 April 1989.   All five applicants received REA.   When Mrs Hepple and Mrs Stec reached the age of 60, it was decided that, from 31 March 1996, their REA should be replaced by RA, a lower payment. They complained that a man of the same age would have continued to receive REA.   From 31 March 1996 and 29 September 1994 respectively Mr Lunn and Mr Kimber received a statutory retirement pension. Their REA was subsequently replaced by RA. They complained that a woman in the same circumstances would have been treated as having retired on or before the more stringent rules came into force in 1989 and so would have been entitled to a frozen rate of REA for life. From 23 December 1986 Mrs Spencer started to receive a retirement pension. Her REA was subsequently frozen for life. She complained that, had she been a man, she would have continued to receive unfrozen REA . All five applicants’ cases were joined by the Social Security Commissioner who referred two questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ gave judgment on 23 May 2000, finding that the discriminatory criteria in relation to REA were not incompatible with European Community law because they were linked to receipt of old-age benefit and thus fell outside the scope of Directive 79/7/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment in matters of social security. On 31 July 2000 the Commissioner, following the ECJ’s ruling, struck out the applicants’ cases where they were the appellants.   Complaints   The applicants complain that they have suffered sex discrimination as a result of changes to the REA scheme. They all rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention combined with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 January 2001. On 24   August 2004 the Chamber of the Court dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [2] of the Convention.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish) Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Citizen of “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), András Baka (Hungarian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), judges , John Hedigan (Irish), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [3] , substitute judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Derek Walton , Agent ,   David Pannick , Q.C., Claire Weir, Counsel ,   Elisabeth Haggett , Jeremy Heath , Kath Wilson , Andrew Fearn , Advisers ;   Applicants :   Richard Drabble , Q.C., Helen Mountfield , Counsel;   John Clinch , Jacky Starling , Solicitors .   Patrick Vincent Lunn and Audrey Flewker will also attend the hearing.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility followed if appropriate by a judgment, will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Prior to 10 April 1989 REA recipients who had reached either (1) 70, if a man, or 65, if a woman, or (2) the date of retirement fixed by a notice, at age 65+ for a man or 60+ for a woman, would receive a frozen rate of REA for life. All other REA recipients would cease to receive REA, and would instead receive RA either on reaching (1) 70, if a man, or 65, if a woman, or (2) the date of retirement fixed by a notice, at age 65+ for a man or 60+ for a woman or on giving up employment at 65 for a man or 60 for a woman.   [2] Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects. [3] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein.