CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 septembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4A9627D5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .sA48F4BB0 { margin-bottom:12pt; border:1.5pt solid #f8f8f8; clear:both } .s42665967 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:6pt; padding-right:6pt; padding-left:6pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s9032BEEB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s499EF5A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:6pt; padding-left:6pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .s6211FF2F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:6pt; padding-left:6pt; padding-bottom:6pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .sA790A2B6 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#4d4d4d } .s1EC556E4 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:22pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:13pt } .sB1DBBAAD { font-family:Arial; color:#4d4d4d } .s3517551 { margin-top:22pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:justify } .s5936AB92 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify } .sF6F4B4AB { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:10pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:13pt } .sC897901E { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s3400F3BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BF6A7B3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4566725A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt } .s38126DB9 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:13pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:13pt } .s94DD9B14 { margin-top:13pt; margin-bottom:9pt; text-align:justify } .s61C9DAAD { margin-top:9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sF741ECC3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s8902864 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:15pt; text-align:justify } .s4D60CB20 { margin-top:15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sEDF764B5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify } .s1D09AB4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sED16FFEB { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-top:1pt; font-size:2pt } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sCCDE293C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s7C0CA362 { margin-top:18pt; border:1.5pt solid #f8f8f8; clear:both } .s79F89FD5 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#0072bc } .sEFC47909 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:6pt; padding-left:6pt; font-size:4pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .sF5C1637F { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s4F8E2AF5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s7BB14FF6 { margin-top:3pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   Rules on child maintenance prior to introduction of Civil Partnership Act discriminated against those in same-sex relationships In today’s Chamber judgment in the case J. M. v. the United Kingdom (Application no.   37060/06) which is not final [1] , the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a:   Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights Principal facts The applicant, J.M.,   a British national, is the mother of two children, born in 1991 and 1993. She and her husband subsequently divorced and the applicant left the family home. For the purposes of the UK’s child support legislation, her former husband became the parent with care of the children and the applicant, as the non-resident parent, was required to contribute financially to the cost of their upbringing. Since 1998   the applicant has been living with another woman in an intimate   relationship.   Her child maintenance obligation was assessed in September 2001 in accordance with the regulations that applied at that time. These provided for a reduced amount where the absent parent had entered into a new relationship, married or unmarried, but took no account of same-sex relationships. The applicant complained that the difference was appreciable – she was required to pay approximately 47 British pounds (GBP) per week, whereas if she had formed a new relationship with a man the amount due would be around GBP 14. Her   complaint was upheld by three levels of jurisdiction, but the case was overturned by a majority ruling in the House of Lords in 2006.   The applicant’s reliance on Article 8 of the Convention, especially its family   life aspect, was rejected. Two members of the majority held that the applicant’s situation did not fall within the ambit of Article 8 of the Convention as the link between the regulations and her relationship with her partner was too tenuous. Even if it were not, they considered that the United Kingdom had remained within its margin of appreciation up to the point in time when the Civil Partnership Act 2004 removed the difference in treatment complained of. The other two members of the majority held that same-sex relationships were not, at that time, recognised by the Strasbourg case-law as a form of family life within the meaning of Article 8. All of the members of the majority rejected the argument that the situation was within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They saw that provision as primarily concerned with the expropriation of assets for a public purpose and not with the enforcement of a personal obligation of an absent parent.   It   would be artificial to view child support payments as a deprivation of the absent parent’s possessions.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court J.M. alleged that, when setting the level of child maintenance she was required to pay, the authorities had discriminated against her on the basis of her sexual orientation. She relied on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), submitting that that Article applied to her situation either in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 September 2006. Third-party comments were received from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, London. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows: Lech Garlicki (Poland), President , Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro) , Judges ,   and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar. Decision of the Court The Court decided that the case most naturally fell within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The sums paid by the applicant out of her own financial resources towards the upkeep of her children were to be considered as “contributions” (just like social security benefits or taxation) since payment was required by the relevant legislative provisions and enforced through the Child Support Agency. Article 14   thus applied to the situation complained of.   The Court did not find it necessary to decide whether the facts of the case fell within the scope of Article 8. Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   In order for an issue to arise under Article 14, there had to be a difference in the treatment of persons in relevantly similar situations. Where the complaint was one of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, the State had to give particularly convincing and weighty reasons to justify such a difference in treatment. The Court considered that J.M. could compare her situation to that of an absent parent who had formed a new relationship with a person of the opposite sex. The only point of difference between her and such persons was her sexual orientation. Therefore, her maintenance obligation towards her children had been assessed differently on account of the nature of her new relationship. Yet, bearing in mind the purpose of the domestic regulations, which was to avoid placing an excessive financial burden on the absent parent in their new circumstances, the Court could see no reason for such difference in treatment. Indeed, it was not clear why the applicant’s housing costs should have been taken into account differently than would have been the case had she formed a relationship with a man. The Court therefore concluded that there lacked sufficient justification for such discrimination in 2001-2002. The reforms introduced by the Civil Partnership Act some years later, however laudable, had no bearing on the matter. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Other articles Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that the United Kingdom was to pay the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 18,000 for costs and expenses. The decision is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds . Press contacts [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) 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]     Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution