European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> WOODS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 60274/00 [2007] ECHR 943 (20 November 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/943.html
Cite as: [2007] ECHR 943

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF WOODS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

(Application no. 60274/00)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

20 November 2007

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Woods v. the United Kingdom,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J. Casadevall, President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 23 October 2007,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 60274/00) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Humphrey Wood (“the applicant”) on 9 June 2000.

The applicant was represented before the Court by Pierce Glynn Solicitors, London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.

The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because he was a man, he was denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.

By a partial decision of 15 January 2002 the Court decided to communicate this application, and to join it to other applications (nos. 58370/00, 60940/00, 61019/00, 61394/00, 61398/00, 61781/00, 62966/00, 63471/00, 63476/00, 63478/00, 63481/00, 63507/00).

On 6 May 2003, after obtaining the parties' observations, the Court declared this application admissible in so far as the complaint concerned Widowed Mother's Allowance as from the date of the applicant's second claim and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Bristol.

His wife died on 27 November 1990, leaving one child born in 1990. His second claim for widows' benefits was made in October 1999 and was rejected on 12 January 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

The relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's judgment in the case of Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 14 26, ECHR 2002-IV.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 AND/OR 8 OF THE CONVENTION.

The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to pay him the social security benefit to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widowed Mother's Allowance (“WMA”), constituted discrimination against him on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8 of the Convention.

Article 14 of the Convention provides:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides:

“1. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

2. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

Article 8 provides (as relevant):

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of ... the economic well-being of the country...”

The Court has previously examined cases raising issues similar to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Willis, cited above, §§ 41-43).

The Court has examined the present case and finds that the Government have not presented any facts or arguments which would lead to a different conclusion in this instance. Therefore the Court considers that the difference in treatment between men and women as regards entitlement to WMA, of which the applicant was a victim, was not based on any “objective and reasonable justification” (see Willis, cited above, § 42).

There has accordingly been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Court, having concluded that there has 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 WMA, does not consider it necessary to examine his complaints in that regard under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see Willis, cited above, § 53).

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Pecuniary damage

In respect of pecuniary damage the applicant claimed a total of 127,804.14 British pounds sterling (GBP):

(i) GBP 15,277.60 for WMA payments from 14 July 1998 to 9 April 2001;

(ii) Christmas bonus, GBP 30;

(iii) Interest at a rate of 8% on the above amounts, namely, GBP 8,444.54;

(iv) GBP 87,550 for loss of income from July 1998 to July 2007;

(v) GBP 8,500 for extra costs of works to his house;

(vi) GBP 8,002 for loss of annuity and pension;

The Government submitted that GBP 18,023.76 covering the amount of WMA due and including GBP 3,218.51 in respect of interest would be adequate compensation. The Government submitted that the Court should apply the same interest rates as applied by the Department of Work and Pensions when, exceptionally, a welfare claimant had lost the use of a sum of money as a result of a departmental error. These rates, based on the yearly Average Retail Shares and Deposits rate supplied by the Building Societies Commission, varied from 4.881%, being the highest, in 1998–1999, and 2.691%, being the lowest, in 2003-2004. The Government contested the remaining claims as they were not due to the applicant's failure to receive social security benefits.

The Court notes that the applicant's claim has been declared admissible only in so far as it relates to his second claim for WMA in October 1999, and, therefore, in view of the three-month interval, the applicant is entitled to WMA payments from July 1999.

The Court considers that the interest rate applied, which is intended to compensate for loss of value of the award over time, should reflect national economic conditions, such as levels of inflation and rates of interest available to investors nationally during the relevant period and it considers that the rate proposed by the Government is the more realistic (see Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, judgment of 25 July 2007, § 52).

In these circumstances, the Court awards the applicant GBP 18,023.76 (approximately 26,000 euros) which covers both the amount due in WMA and interest on it.

The Court further considers that there is no causal link between the remaining heads of pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant and the violation found in the present case (see Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta, no. 35829/03, § 58, 24 October 2006). It therefore makes no award in respect of those claims.

B. Non-pecuniary damage

The applicant claimed GBP 10,125 for the hurt and distress caused by the alleged violation.

The Government contested the claim on the basis of the Court's jurisprudence.

The Court does not accept that he was caused any particular moral damage as a result of being denied the benefit in question. No award is accordingly made under this head.

C. Costs and expenses

The applicant also claimed GBP 3,387.23 in respect of costs and expenses, inclusive of value added tax (“VAT”).

The Government contested the claim, which it believed was excessive. It submitted that the figure of GBP 2,000 inclusive of VAT would suffice.

The Court reiterates that only legal costs and expenses found to have been actually and necessarily incurred and which are reasonable as to quantum are recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II). On the basis of the information in its possession and taking into account that all relevant issues concerning WMA were addressed in Willis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 2,500 for legal costs and expenses, in addition to any VAT that may be payable.

D. Default interest

The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

Decides to disjoin the application from the others to which it was joined;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning non-entitlement to a Widowed Mother's Allowance;

Holds that it is not necessary to consider that complaint under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8;

Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses;

(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 November 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President