PM v United Kingdom
| Judge | JUDGES CASADEVALL (PRESIDENT),BRATZA,PELLONPÄÄ,MARUSTE,TRAJA,MIJOVIC,IKUTA,ELENS-PASSOS (DEPUTY SECTION REGISTRAR) |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 2005 |
Human rights – Taxation – Council of Europe – Discrimination – Unmarried father paying maintenance for child – Tax relief on maintenance payments refused as parents were not married – Whether discrimination – Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 14 and Protocol No 1, art 1.
The applicant, a British national, lived in a stable relationship with D between 1987 and 1997. They were not married and in June 1991, D had a daughter. The applicant was registered as father on the birth certificate. In October 1997, the applicant and D separated and subsequently they entered into a Deed of Separation by which the applicant undertook to pay weekly maintenance of £25 for his daughter. In the 1998-99 tax year, he paid £1,300 under the deed. The sum increased over time in accordance with the applicant’s increase in earnings. For the year of assessment 1997-98, the applicant was granted relief on his self-assessment tax return for the maintenance payments made under the deed. The government stated that this was an error by the Inland Revenue. In 1998-99, the applicant put in a further claim to deduct these maintenance payments. This would have reduced his income tax liability by £195. By letter dated 21 December 2000, the Inland Revenue refused the claim for tax relief in respect of the maintenance payments: ‘because you were never married to your daughter’s mother.’ The applicant appealed against the refusal to the General Commissioners invoking the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention). On 15 August 2002, the General Commissioners rejected his appeal, primarily on the ground that the Human Rights Act 1998 did not apply to the case as it had only come into force on 2 October 2000 after the tax year in question. The applicant applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging he had been discriminated against as an unmarried father as he had not qualified for tax deductions in respect of maintenance payments paid to the mother of his daughter. He submitted that he was in an analogous position to married fathers and that there was no objective and reasonable justification for such discrimination. The government submitted inter alia that the question of paternity was irrelevant to the qualifying maintenance payment allowance as it was the relationship of marriage that was at the core of the national legislation in question. It argued alternatively that there was an objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment citing the historical development of the tax relief available for maintenance payments in the context of the taxation of married couples and that the promotion of the institution of marriage had been recognised as legitimate and within the margin of appreciation of the state.
Held – There had been a violation of art 14 of the Convention in conjunction with art 1 of Protocol No 1. For the purposes of art 14 a difference in treatment between persons in analogous or relevantly similar positions was discriminatory if it did not pursue a legitimate aim or if there was not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. The applicant differed from a married father only as regards the issue of marital status and was able, for the purposes of this application, to claim to have been in a relevantly similar position. He had been acknowledged as the father and had acted in that role. Given that he had financial obligations towards his daughter, which he had duly fulfilled, there was no reason for treating the applicant differently from a married father, now divorced and separated from the mother, as regards the tax deductibility of those payments.
Cases referred to in judgmentCamp and Bourimi v Netherlands[2000] 3 FCR 307, ECtHR.
James v UK (1986) 8 EHRR 213, ECtHR.
Lindsay (DG and DW) v UK (1986) 49 DR 181, EComHR.
McMichael v UK (Application 16424/90) (1995) 20 EHRR 205, [1995] 2 FCR 718, ECtHR.
Sahin v Germany[2002] 3 FCR 321, ECtHR.
Sahin v Germany[2003] 2 FCR 619, ECtHR.
Shackell v UK (App no 45851/99) (27 April 2000, unreported), ECt HR.
Willis v UK[2002] 2 FCR 743, ECtHR.
ApplicationThe applicant brought an application against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, alleging that he had been discriminated against in breach of art 14 (in conjunction with art 1 of Protocol No 1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 as an unmarried father as he had not qualified for tax deductions in respect of maintenance payments paid to the mother of his daughter. The facts are set out in the judgment.
19 July 2005. The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) delivered the following judgment.
PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no 6638/03) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the court under art 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (the Convention) by a British national, Mr PM (the applicant), on 14 February 2003. The President of the Chamber acceded to
the applicant’s...
To continue reading
Request your trial