CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 avril 2006

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s6F57788 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   216 12.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT STEC AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 65731/01).   The Court held, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, all United Kingdom nationals, are: 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. (Regina Hepple, born in 1933 and living in Wakefield withdrew from the case.)   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 after retirement, 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).   All the applicants received REA.   When Mrs Stec reached the age of 60, it was decided that, from 31 March 1996, her REA should be replaced by RA, a lower payment. She complained that a man of the same age would have continued to receive REA.   From 17 May 1993 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.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The case originated in two applications (nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01) which were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 January 2001 and 22 November 2000 respectively.   The Chamber decided to join the two applications on 5 March 2002. 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.   On 25 February 2005 Mrs Hepple, informed the Court that, for personal reasons, she no longer wished to continue with the case. Considering that respect for human rights did not require it to continue examining it, the Court decided to strike out Mrs   Hepple’s application.   A Grand Chamber hearing took place in the Human Rights building in Strasbourg on 9 March 2005.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), John Hedigan (Irish) Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), 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 , and also Lawrence Early , Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaint The applicants complained that they suffered sex discrimination as a result of changes to the REA scheme linking it to State pensionable age. They all relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, combined with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Decision of the Court   The Court considered that both the United Kingdom Government’s policy decision to stop paying REA to those who would otherwise have retired from paid employment, and the decision to achieve that aim by linking the cut-off age for REA to the notional “end of working life”, or State pensionable age, pursued a legitimate aim and were reasonably and objectively justified.   It remained to be examined whether or not the underlying difference in treatment between men and women in the State pension scheme was acceptable under Article 14.   Differential pensionable ages were first introduced for men and women in the United Kingdom in 1940, well before the Convention had come into existence. The difference in treatment was adopted in order to mitigate financial inequality and hardship arising out of the woman’s traditional unpaid role of caring for the family in the home rather than earning money in the workplace. At their origin, therefore, the differential pensionable ages were intended to correct “factual inequalities” between men and women and appeared therefore to have been objectively justified under Article 14.   It followed that the difference in pensionable ages continued to be justified until such time that social conditions had changed so that women were no longer substantially prejudiced because of a shorter working life. That change, had, by its very nature, to have been gradual, and it would be difficult or impossible to pinpoint any particular moment when the unfairness to men caused by differential pensionable ages began to outweigh the need to correct the disadvantaged position of women. Certain indications were available to the Court. For example, in the 1993 White Paper, the Government asserted that the proportion of women in paid employment had increased from 37% in 1967 to 50% in 1992.   According to the information before the Court, the Government made a first, concrete, move towards establishing the same pensionable age for both sexes with the publication of the Green Paper in December 1991. It would, no doubt, be possible to argue that that step could, or should, have been made earlier. However, the development of parity in the working lives of men and women had been a gradual process, and one which the national authorities were better placed to assess. Moreover, it was significant that many other countries in Europe   maintained a difference in the ages at which men and women become eligible for the State retirement pension [4] .   In the light of the original justification for the measure as correcting financial inequality between the sexes, the slowly evolving nature of the change in women’s working lives, and in the absence of a common standard among European States, the Court found that the United Kingdom could not be criticised for not having started earlier on the road towards a single pensionable age.   Having once begun the move towards equality, moreover, the Court did not consider it unreasonable of the Government to carry out a thorough process of consultation and review, nor could Parliament be condemned for deciding in 1995 to introduce the reform slowly and in stages, given the extremely far-reaching and serious implications, for women and for the economy in general.   Conclusion In conclusion, the Court found that the difference in State pensionable age between men and women in the United Kingdom was originally intended to correct the disadvantaged economic position of women. It continued to be reasonably and objectively justified on that ground until such time that social and economic changes removed the need for special treatment for women. The United Kingdom Government’s decisions as to the precise timing and means of putting right the inequality were not manifestly unreasonable. Similarly, the decision to link eligibility for REA to the pension system was reasonably and objectively justified, given that the benefit was intended to compensate for reduced earning capacity during a person’s working life. There had not, therefore, been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     Judge Borrego-Borrego expressed a concurring opinion and Judge   Loucaides expressed a dissenting opinion which are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts: Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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. [1] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. [4] According to information provided by the United Kingdom Government in December 2004, men and women became eligible to receive an old age pension at the same age in Andorra, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden.   Women were entitled to receive a pension at a younger age than men in Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Switzerland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Ukraine. Many of those countries were phasing in equalisation of pensionable age. That was to take place in Austria between 2024-33; in Azerbaijan by 2012; in Belgium between 1997 and 2009; in Estonia before 2016; in Hungary by 2009; in Latvia by 2008; and in Lithuania by 2006.