LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
L.T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and 5 other applications
Doc ref: 8786/20;10818/20;10833/20;10974/20;10984/20;13123/20 • ECHR ID: 001-208520
Document date: February 12, 2021
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
L.T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and 5 other applications
Doc ref: 8786/20;10818/20;10833/20;10974/20;10984/20;13123/20 • ECHR ID: 001-208520
Document date: February 12, 2021
Cited paragraphs only
Communicated on 12 February 2021 Published on 1 March 2021
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 8786/20 L.T. against the United Kingdom and five other applications (see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the Government ’ s policy of providing thirty hours per week of free childcare to three-year-old and four-year-old children of working parents but only fifteen hours per week of free childcare to three-year-old and four-year-old children of non-working parents. The free childcare is generally provided in formal educational settings such as nurseries and pre-schools.
The applicants are three lone parents and their three young children. Two of the parents are full-time carers for disabled relatives and the third is a victim of domestic violence who, at the relevant time, resided in a women ’ s refuge. They argue that failing to provide thirty hours of free childcare in their circumstances amounted to discriminatory treatment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants been treated differently from other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation in the enjoyment of their Convention rights due to their “other status”, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 8 and/or Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
2. If so, was there an objective and reasonable justification for that difference in treatment, namely did it pursue a legitimate aim and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised?
In particular, what test should the Court apply in determining whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised in the present case (see J.D. and A v. the United Kingdom , nos. 32949/17 and 34614/17, §§ 89 and 97, 24 October 2019)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1
8786/20
L.T. v. the United Kingdom
05/02/2020
2015London
British
Hopkin Murray Beskine
2
10818/20
G.W. v. the United Kingdom
05/02/2020
1993London
British
3
10833/20
F.L. v. the United Kingdom
05/02/2020
1991London
British
4
10974/20
R.S. v. the United Kingdom
05/02/2020
2015London
British
5
10984/20
F.B. v. the United Kingdom
05/02/2020
1983Birmingham
British
6
13123/20
A.H. v. the United Kingdom
05/02/2020
2016Birmingham
British
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
