CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 29 janvier 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC314E67C { width:11.24pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     057   29.1.2002     Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING the UNITED KINGDOM and the NETHERLANDS   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments; only Fielding v. the United Kingdom is final [1] :   SECTION 2   (1)   Fielding v. the United Kingdom (application no. 36940/97)                Friendly Settlement   The applicant, David Fielding, a United Kingdom national, married in 1973 and had three children, born in 1974, 1976 and 1988. His wife, who died in 1996, worked throughout the marriage, only taking breaks to have the three children, and paid full social security contributions as an employed earner. The applicant works full-time, earning approximately 29,500 pounds sterling (GBP) a year, from which he has to pay the mortgage on the family home and support himself and the children, the two eldest of whom are currently at university and the youngest of whom lives with the applicant and is partly cared for by a child-minder.   In January 1997 the applicant applied for social security benefits equivalent to those to which a widow   - whose husband had died in similar circumstances to his wife - would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). He was informed that his claim was invalid because the regulations governing the payment of widows’ benefits were specific to women. An appeal against such a decision would be bound to fail given that no social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law. Mr Fielding also applied for bereavement tax allowance, but was informed that he did not qualify, because the law provided only for payments to widows.   On 9 April 2001 the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 came into force, making bereavement benefits available to both men and women.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the United Kingdom Government is to pay Mr Fielding GBP 14,573.32. According to the Government, this is the amount he would have received (had he been a woman) in Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance from his wife’s death until 9 April 2001 and the amount the Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance would have been worth to him - plus GBP 5,000 for legal costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     A.B .   v. the Netherlands (no. 37328/97)                 Violation Articles 8 and 13   On 30 May 1996 A.B., a British national, was extradited from the United States to the Netherlands Antilles, where he had been charged with embezzlement and forgery. He was detained in the Pointe Blanche Penitentiary on the island of St. Maarten. On 7 October 1997 he was ultimately convicted of embezzlement and forgery by the Joint Court of Justice of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. On 27 February 1998, after having served his sentence, he was released from prison.   The applicant complains about the conditions in Point Blanche Penitentiary. Among other things, he claims that prison inmates were locked in their cells for 21 hours a day with nothing to do, that after 10 days’ detention, inmates were permitted on the following Saturday a maximum of four sheets of paper and four envelopes, that there were no telephone facilities apart from previously announced incoming telephone calls not exceeding 15 minutes, that inmates had to provide their own clothing and bed linen, which they had to wash in the showers or primitive sinks during recreation, that toilets did not flush and that shower taps and pipes were leaking.   He also alleges that, during his detention in the Netherlands Antilles, his correspondence with, among others, his lawyers and the European Commission of Human Rights, was opened and read by the prison authorities and that he was prevented from establishing contacts outside prison because of the extremely limited facilities available to him to write letters or telephone. He relies on Article 8 (respect for correspondence). He also complains, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) read in conjunction with Article 8 and Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment), that there was no effective remedy concerning the control of his correspondence or the conditions of his detention.   The European Court of Human Rights found that no reasons had been disclosed or substantiated which could have justified the control of the applicant’s correspondence with the Commission, the confidentiality of which had to be respected. Insofar as there had been an interference by the prison authorities with the exchange of the applicant’s correspondence with his representative, a former inmate of Pointe Blanche Penitentiary, the Court observed that, although it might sometimes be necessary to screen such correspondence, it found no grounds for a complete ban. The Court found that the alleged interference with the applicant’s correspondence with the prosecution authorities of the Netherlands Antilles, the British Consul and private individuals was wholly unsubstantiated. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   8 in respect of the interference with the applicant’s correspondence with the Commission and the applicant’s representative, but that there had been no violation of Article   8 in respect of the applicant’s other complaints under this provision.   Given the inadequate implementation by the Netherlands Antilles authorities of judicial orders to improve prison facilities and their failure to implement urgent recommendations from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the Court found that the applicant had no effective remedy concerning his rights guaranteed under Article 8 or Article 3.     The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   13.   The Court awarded him 3,500 Euros for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.) *** The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.