FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 42949/98 by George RUNKEE against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 4 June 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mr M. Pellonpää , President , Sir Nicolas Bratza ,

Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo , Mr J. Makarczyk , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 July 1998 and registered on 26 August 1998,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, George Runkee, is a United Kingdom national , born in 1938 and living in Hull. The respondent Government are represented by Mr C.A. Whomersley, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant married in 1964. He and his wife had three children, born in 1965, 1966 and 1974. On 15 March 1998 his wife died. She had worked full time for eight years until becoming pregnant and had made full social security contributions.

The applicant notified the Benefits Agency of his wife’s death and of his intention to claim “widowers’ benefits” under new legislation (which became the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999) on 31 March 1998.

By a letter dated 16 April 1998, the Benefits Agency informed the applicant, because he was not a woman, he was not entitled to widow’s benefits.

The applicant lodged a statutory appeal against this decision on 1 May 1998, but abandoned it when advised that the appeal was bound to fail.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Under United Kingdom law, certain social security benefits, including Widow’s Payment and Widow’s Pension, are paid for out of the National Insurance Fund. By Section 1 of the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”), the funds required for paying such benefits are to be provided by means of contributions payable to the Secretary of State for Social Security by earners, employers and others, together with certain additions made to the Fund by Parliament.

Male and female earners are obliged to pay the same social security contributions in accordance with their status as employed earners or self-employed earners.

1. Widow’s Payment

Under Section 36 of the 1992 Act, a woman who has been widowed is entitled to a Widow’s Payment (currently a lump sum payment of GBP 1,000) if:

(i) she is under pensionable age at the time when her husband died, or he was not then entitled to a Category A retirement pension; and

(ii) her husband satisfied certain specified social security contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the 1992 Act.

2. Widow’s Pension

Under Section 38 of the 1992 Act, a woman who has been widowed (and who is not remarried) is entitled to a Widow’s Pension if:

(i) her husband satisfied the contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the Act; and

(ii) at the date of her husband’s death she was over the age of 45 but under the age of 65; or

(iii) she ceased to be entitled to a widowed mother’s allowance at the time when she was over the age of 45 but under the age of 65.

3. The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999

The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act (“the 1999 Act”) introduces, inter alia , a new allowance called Bereavement Allowance, which replaces the Widow’s Pension. This will be payable to men and women who meet the relevant qualifying conditions. The 1999 Act also introduces a new social security payment, called a Bereavement Payment, payable both to men and women in place of the Widow’s Payment.

The relevant parts of the Act entered into force on 9 April 2001 and allow any man whose wife dies on or after that date to apply for Bereavement Payment or Bereavement Allowance in exactly the same way as a woman whose husband dies on or after that date.

The 1999 Act preserves the entitlements of women under the 1992 Act whose husbands died before 9 April 2001. They will thus continue to be entitled to the Widow’s Payment and Widow’s Pension where the relevant qualifying conditions are met.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that United Kingdom social security legislation concerned discriminates against him on grounds of his sex and thus violates Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that the lack of provision for widowers’ benefits under United Kingdom social security legislation discriminates 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. He complains of a continuing violation from his wife’s death in March 1998 onwards.

Article 14 states:

“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 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 ... .”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 states:

“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 considers that the application raises complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits. It concludes, therefore, that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Michael O’Boyle Matti Pellonpää              Registrar              President