BURNS v. UNITED KINGDOM
Doc ref: 17256/90 • ECHR ID: 001-776
Document date: November 7, 1990
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 17256/90
by Joseph BURNS
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
7 November 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 4 June 1990
by Joseph BURNS against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 October
1990 under file No. 17256/90;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom born in 1924
and resident in Southampton.
The applicant complains on behalf of himself and his wife that
they are unable to receive a State pension for his wife because she is
paid an Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) to look after their 22 year old
daughter who suffers from Down's Syndrome. The reason for this was
explained as follows by the Department of Social Security in a letter
dated 10 January 1990 to the applicant's Member of Parliament:-
"We full recognise the valuable contribution made by carers
who devotedly care for a severely disabled relative at home.
However, I must confirm that a retirement pensioner cannot
receive ICA in addition to her retirement pension.
Retirement pension is intended to provide a sum for basic
weekly maintenance. It allows a person who so wishes to
give up full time work and retire. ICA is also an income
maintenance benefit intended to help meet the needs of a
person unable to undertake employment because they are
caring for someone. Rules preventing the duplicate payment
of benefits intended for the same purpose have been a
feature of our Social Security scheme since it began.
From the scheme's inception in 1948, all flat rate National
Insurance benefits were designed to provide income maintenance
when a particular contingency catered for under the scheme
arises, for example sickness, unemployment, widowhood and
the reaching of pension age. This also applies to benefits
introduced since then such as ICA. It has never been the
intention that when a person is entitled to more than one
benefit at the same time, the benefits should be added
together. Since, as I have said, each benefit fulfils the
same purpose, paying one on top of another would mean over
provision from public funds. The overlapping benefit rules
apply to all people who qualify for more than one income
maintenance benefit at the same time, not just pensioners.
Mr. Burns contrasts the position of a pensioner who is now
able to have unlimited earnings, with a pensioner who is
unable to work because she is a carer, yet cannot also
receive ICA. There is a difference, however, between
disregarding earnings which are not payable from public
funds and allowing duplicate payment of benefit."
The applicant does not make a claim to be a victim of a
specific violation of the Convention, but states that the State's
policy is unjust in view of the difficult task involved in caring for
his daughter and the fact that he had to contribute throughout his
working life to the State pension scheme.
The Commission has examined the applicant's complaint but
finds that the case, as it has been submitted, does not raise an issue
under any Convention right or freedom. In particular, it finds that
the applicant cannot make a claim under the Convention in the
circumstances of his case that he and his wife are entitled to the
accumulated payment of his wife's State pension and the ICA.
Accordingly the application must be rejected as incompatible ratione
materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to
Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
