BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 65723/01)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22
January 2008
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 Goodwin v. the United Kingdom,
The European Court of Human Rights
(Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall,
President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Kristaq Traja,
Stanislav
Pavlovschi,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 65723/01) 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 John
Goodwin (“the applicant”) on 12 December 2000.
- The
applicant was unrepresented. The United Kingdom Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley
of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities’
refusal to grant him Widow’s Bereavement Allowance or
equivalent constituted discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to
Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1.
4. By a partial decision of 4 December 2001 the Court decided to
communicate this application. It also decided to join this
application to other applications (nos. 60525/00,
60933/00, 60937/00, 60944/00, 61038/00, 61388/00,
61949/00, 62776/00 63388/00, 63464/00, 63469/00, 63470/00, 63473/00,
63474/00, 63584/00, 63645/00, 63701/00, 63702/00 and 64735/01).
- 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 and declared the
remainder of the application inadmissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Solihull.
- His
wife died on 23 March 1999. On 16 September 2000 the applicant made a
claim to the Inland Revenue requesting an allowance equivalent to
that received by a widow, namely Widow’s Bereavement Allowance
(“WBA”), for the years 1998/99 and 1999/2000. On 29
September 2000 the Inland Revenue informed him that he was ineligible
for WBA as he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal further
as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to
fail since no such benefit was payable to widowers under United
Kingdom law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law and practice are described in the Court’s
judgment in the case of Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00,
63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN
IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities’
refusal to grant him WBA or equivalent constituted discrimination on
grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in
conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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.”
- 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
(Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and
Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and
63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007, §§ 53-54).
- The
Court has examined the present case and finds that there are no facts
or arguments from the Government which would lead to any different
conclusion in this instance. Therefore the Court considers that the
difference in treatment between men and women as regards entitlement
to WBA, of which the applicant was a victim, was not based on any
“objective and reasonable justification” (see Hobbs,
cited above, § 53).
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention
taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. 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. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 482 pounds sterling (GBP) for WBA, plus tax, in
respect of pecuniary damage.
- The
Government argued that such an award could not be made, having regard
to the Court’s case-law in this area.
- In
its lead judgment regarding WBA the Court 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 in respect of the pecuniary
loss alleged to have been suffered (see Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00,
63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, 26 March 2007, § 69).
- The
Court finds no reason to depart from this finding and consequently no
award can be made under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claim under this head.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Decides to disjoin the application from the
others to which it was joined;
- Holds that there has 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 a Widow’s
Bereavement Allowance;
- Dismisses the applicant’s claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
