British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
DOBB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 63388/00 [2007] ECHR 948 (20 November 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/948.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 948
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF DOBB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 63388/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
20
November 2007
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dobb 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. 63388/00) 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 Gerald
Dobb on 9 October 2000. The applicant died during the
proceedings before this Court. On 21 July 2005 Mr Dobb's son on
behalf of his estate confirmed that it wished to pursue the
proceedings.
The
applicant and later his son in his stead were unrepresented before
the Court. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office.
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
tax benefits equivalent to those received by widows.
By
a partial decision of 4 December 2001 the Court decided to
communicate this application. On 26 August 2003, after obtaining the
parties' observations, the Court declared the application admissible
in so far as the complaint concerned Widow's Bereavement Allowance.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Barrow-in-Furness.
The
applicant's wife died on 13 February 1999. On 12 September 2000 the
applicant contacted the Inland Revenue and applied for Widow's
Bereavement Allowance (“WBA”). By a response dated 18
September 2000, he was informed that he did not qualify for WBA,
since he was a man and the law provided only for payments to widows.
The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised
that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such tax benefits
were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
The
domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00 (BAILII: [2006] ECHR 976 ],
63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, 26 March 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The
applicant complained that British tax legislation had discriminated
against him on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 of the
Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
In
the Court's lead judgment regarding WBA, it was held that the
difference in treatment between men and women as regards the WBA was
not reasonably and objectively justified (see Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, cited above). The
Court, consequently, found a violation of Article 14 taken in
conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the
non-payment to the applicants of WBA (ibid § 54).
However, it found no reason to remedy the inequality of treatment by
“levelling up” and awarding the value of tax benefits
which had been found to be unjustified. It accordingly made no award
by way of just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary loss alleged
to have been suffered but it granted payment for legal costs and
expenses (ibid §§ 69, 75).
On
22 May the Government notified the Court that according to its
case-law no sums were due for the applicant's personal
representation. However, in a good will gesture which would not be
regarded as a precedent in other cases, the Government agreed to pay
the sum of GBP 10. On 30 May 2007 the Registry sent a letter to
the applicant's estate administrator informing him to contact the
Government for payment and to confirm that such payment had been
received by 26 June 2007. The applicant's estate administrator did
not reply. By a letter of 31 July 2007 the Registry sent a letter by
registered post to the applicant's estate administrator informing him
that, in view of the fact that no reply had been received, the Court
would consider that a friendly settlement had been reached and would
consequently consider striking the case out of its list of cases. By
a letter of 10 August 2000 the applicant's estate administrator
informed the Court that he had not yet received payment. On 24 August
the Registry sent a letter to both parties requesting them to confirm
by 21 September 2007 that the payment had been made. On 17 September
2007 the Government informed the registry that the payment had been
made into the applicant's bank account. This was confirmed by the
applicant by letter of 21 September 2007.
The
Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties
(Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement
is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or
its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention
and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
Accordingly,
the remainder of the application should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its
list of cases.
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
