CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 11 juin 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDCD9A5E { margin-left:13.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     307   11.6.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Willis v. the United Kingdom (application no. 36042/97). The Court held unanimously that:   there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicant’s non-entitlement to a Widow’s Payment and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance ; there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the applicant’s non-entitlement to a Widow’s Pension ; there had been no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); it was not necessary to consider the applicant’s other complaints.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 25,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for pecuniary damage and GBP 12,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   Kevin Willis is a British citizen, born in 1956 and living in Bristol. He married in December 1984 and the couple had two children, Natasha Uma, born 24 March 1989, and Ross Amal, born 2 August 1990. His wife Marlene died of cancer on 7 June 1996, aged 39, leaving her husband administrator of her estate.   Mrs Willis was employed as a Local Authority Housing Officer and, for the greater part of their married life, was the primary breadwinner. She paid full social security contributions as an employed earner until 1994, and was subsequently entitled to contribution credits as a person incapable of work. Mr Willis gave up work to nurse his wife and care for their children on 3 November 1995. Following his wife’s death he worked part-time between 2   September 1996 and 6 November 1996, at an annual salary of GBP 4,393, but since this proved uneconomic, he gave up his job to care full-time for the children.   He applied for benefits equivalent to those which a widow whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of Mrs Willis 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”). His claim was rejected.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 April 1997 and transferred to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 11 May 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Modovan), judges ,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints Mr Willis complained about the discrimination suffered by him and his late wife in respect of the decision to refuse him the Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance, and in respect of his future non-entitlement to a Widow’s Pension, notwithstanding the social security contributions made by his wife during her lifetime. He alleged that British social security legislation was discriminatory on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also complained, under Article 13, that he had no effective remedy, because the discrimination of which he complained was contained within unambiguous primary legislation.   Decision of the Court   Article 14 in conjunction Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Concerning the applicant’s non-entitlement to the Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance , the Court observed that it had not been argued that the applicant did not satisfy the various statutory conditions for payment of the two benefits. The only reason for his being refused the benefits in question was that he is a man. A female in the same position would have had a right, enforceable under domestic law, to receive both.   The Court noted that the applicant’s wife worked throughout the majority of her marriage to the applicant, paying full social security contributions as an employed earner in exactly the same way as a man in her position would have done. It also noted that the applicant gave up work to nurse his wife and care for their children on 3 November 1995 and that, being a relatively low earner, it proved uneconomic for him to return to work on a part-time basis following his wife’s death. Despite all this, he was entitled to significantly fewer financial benefits upon his wife’s death than he would have been had he been a woman and his wife a man.   The Court considered that the difference in treatment between men and women regarding entitlement to the Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance was not based on any objective and reasonable justification and that there had, therefore, been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Concerning the applicant’s non-entitlement to the Widow’s Pension , the Court found that, even if the applicant had been a woman, he would not have qualified for a Widow’s Pension under the conditions set out in the 1992 Act. Indeed, a widow in the applicant’s position would not qualify for the pension until at least 2006 and might never qualify due to the effect of other statutory conditions requiring, for example, that a claimant does not re-marry before the date on which her entitlement would otherwise crystallise.   The Court therefore concluded that, since the applicant had not been treated differently from a woman in an analogous situation, no issue of discrimination contrary to Article 14 arose regarding his entitlement to a Widow’s Pension. The Court therefore found no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the applicant’s non-entitlement to a Widow’s Pension.   Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 Having concluded that there had been a breach of Article   14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the applicant’s non-entitlement to a Widowed Mother’s Allowance and Widow’s Payment , the Court did not consider it necessary to examine his complaints in that regard under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8.   Having concluded that no issue of discrimination contrary to Article 14 arose regarding the applicant’s entitlement to a Widow’s Pension , the Court found no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 in that respect.   Article 14 The Court did not consider it necessary to consider the complaints raised under Article 14 in respect of the applicant’s late wife.   Article 13 The Court recalled that Article 13 did not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State’s primary legislation to be challenged before a national authority on the grounds that it was contrary to the Convention. There had, therefore, been no violation of Article 13.   ***   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. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.