Runkee and another v United Kingdom
| Judge | JUDGE CASADEVALL (PRESIDENT),JUDGES BRATZA,BONELLO,TRAJA,GARLICKI,MIJOVIC AND SIKUTA,MR T EARLY (SECTION REGISTRAR) |
| Judgment Date | 10 May 2007 |
Human rights – Widow’s pension – Discrimination – Peaceful enjoyment of possessions – Legislation treating widowers less favourably than widows – Whether non-payment of widow’s pension and payment to widowers reasonably and objectively justified – European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, art 14, First Protocol, art 1.
The applicants’ wives died in 1998 and 1999 respectively. They subsequently notified the Benefits Agency of the deaths and their intentions to claim ‘widowers’ benefits’ but were informed that, as men, they were not entitled to claim widows’ benefits. On 9 April 2001, the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 came into force. The widow’s pension was replaced with a ‘bereavement allowance’ for widows and widowers who satisfied the relevant criteria and whose spouse had died on or after 9 April 2001. Widows whose husbands had died before that date continued to be eligible for widow’s pension. The Act replaced the widow’s payment, a one-off lump sum payment, intended to assist with additional expenses in the immediate aftermath of the spouse’s death, with the ‘bereavement payment’, available to both widows and widowers whose spouses died on or after 9 April 2001. The applicants complained to the European Court of Human Rights, inter alia, that the non-payment of widow’s pension and widow’s payment to them violated art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, taken in conjunction with art 1 of the First Protocol thereto. It was submitted on behalf of the United Kingdom that the difference in treatment in respect of widow’s pension was reasonably and objectively justified, on the basis that it had been introduced to correct factual inequalities between older widows, who were likely to be disadvantaged by the custom of giving up work upon marriage, and the rest of the population.
Held – (1) Article 14 did not prohibit a member state from treating groups differently in order to correct ‘factual inequalities’ between them. In certain circumstances, a failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment might in itself give rise to a breach of that article. A difference of treatment was, however, discriminatory if it had no objective and reasonable justification, in other words, 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 contracting state enjoyed a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justified different treatment. The scope of that margin would vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and the background. As a general rule, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before difference in treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex could be regarded as compatible with the Convention. On the other hand, a wide margin was usually allowed when it came to general measures of economic or social strategy. In the circumstances, there had been no violation of art 14 taken in conjunction with art 1 of the First Protocol in respect of the non-payment to the applicants of widow’s pension. At its origin and until its abolition in respect of women whose spouses died after 9 April 2001, widow’s pension had been intended to correct ‘factual inequalities’ between older widows, as a group, and the rest of the population. In the circumstances, that difference in treatment had been reasonably and objectively justified. Given the slowly evolving nature of the change in women’s working lives and the impossibility of pinpointing a precise date at which older widows as a class were no longer in need of extra help, the United Kingdom could not be criticised for not having abolished widow’s pension earlier. Moreover, since it had decided to bring about equality through ‘levelling down’, it had not been unreasonable of the legislature to decide to introduce the reform slowly by preserving the rights of women widowed by 9 April 2001; Stec v UK [2006] ECHR 65731/01 considered.
(2) There had been a violation of art 14 taken in connection with art 1 of the First Protocol in respect of the non-payment of widow’s payment. It had previously been held that such non-payment breached those provisions. It had not been argued that the difference in treatment between men and women was based on any ‘objective and reasonable justification’ so as to distinguish the instant case; Willis v UK[2002] 2 FCR 743 considered.
Cases referred to in judgmentAkkus v Turkey [1997] ECHR 19263/92, ECt HR.
Bland v UK [2002] ECHR 52301/99, ECt HR.
Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and Geen v UK [2006] ECHR 63684/00, ECt HR.
Kingsley v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 177, [2002] ECHR 35605/97, ECt HR.
Lindsay v UK App no 11098/84 (1986) 49 DR 181, E Com HR.
Lorse v Netherlands [2003] ECHR 52750/99 , ECt HR.
Prodan v Moldova [2004] ECHR 49806/99, ECt HR.
R (on the application of Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2005] UKHL 29, [2005] 2 FCR 183, [2006] 1 All ER 487, [2005] 1 WLR 1681.
Razzouk and Beydoun v EC Commission Joined cases 75 and 117/82 [1984] ECR 1509.
Romanchenko v Ukraine [2005] ECHR 5596/03, ECt HR.
Schouten and Meldrum v Netherlands (1994) 19 EHRR 432, [1994] ECHR 19005/91, ECt HR.
Stec v UK [2006] ECHR 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECt HR.
Van Raalte v Netherlands (1997) 24 EHRR 503, [1997] ECHR 20060/92, ECt HR.
Wessels-Bergervoet v Netherlands [2002] ECHR 34462/97, ECt HR.
Willis v UK[2002] 2 FCR 743, ECt HR.
ApplicationThe applicants, George Runkee and Brian White, lodged applications against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, complaining that, as men, they were not entitled to receive widows’ benefits, including Widow’s Pension, equivalent to those available to comparable bereaved women. The facts are set out in the judgment of the court.
10 May 2007. The European Court of Human Rights delivered the following judgment.
PROCEDURE1. The cases originated in two applications (nos 42949/98 and 53134/99) 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 (‘the Convention’) by two British nationals, Mr George Runkee and Mr Brian White (‘the first and second applicants’), on 20 July 1998 and 4 October 1999 respectively.
2. The United Kingdom government (‘the government’) were represented by their Agent, Mr C Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London. The applicants were represented by Mr S Right, legal officer of the Child Poverty Action Group.
3. The applicants complained that, as men, they were not entitled to receive widows’ benefits, including Widow’s Pension, equivalent to those available to comparable bereaved women.
4. By decisions dated 7 June 2001 and 4 April 2002, respectively, the Court declared the applications admissible. On 9 September 2003 the applications were adjourned pending the conclusion of related domestic proceedings (see paras 22-24 below). On 18 May 2005 the court invited the parties to submit observations on the merits.
5. The government and the applicants requested a hearing on the merits, but the court decided that it would not be necessary.
THE FACTS I. The circumstances of the cases6. The facts of each case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. Mr Runkee7. Mr Runkee was born in 1938 and lives in Hull.
8. He 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.
9. The applicant notified the Benefits Agency of his wife’s death and of his intention to claim ‘widowers’ benefits’ on 31 March 1998. By a letter dated 16 April 1998, the Benefits Agency informed the applicant that 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.
10. At the time of his application to the court, Mr Runkee was in receipt of means-tested statutory benefits, including Income Support and Housing and Council Tax Benefits. Were he a woman, his entitlement to Widow’s Pension would have been offset against these benefits, to the extent that, in his present circumstances, he would have received no additional money in respect of Widow’s Pension.
B. Mr White11. Mr White is a United Kingdom national, born in 1942 and living in Warrington.
12. He married in 1960. He and his wife had two children, one of whom was adopted and born in 1955, the other of whom was born in 1968.
13. On 8 March 1999 his wife died. She had worked until the birth of her son in 1968 and had made reduced social security contributions.
14. The applicant notified the Benefits Agency of his wife’s death and of his intention to claim ‘widowers’ benefits’ on 10 March 1999. On 21 June and 8 September 1999, Angela Eagle, a minister from the Department of Social Security, wrote to the applicant’s Member of Parliament confirming that as a man he was not entitled to claim widows’ benefits.
II. Relevant domestic law and practice A. Widow’s pensions 1925–200115. The following history of the widow’s pension (‘WP’) is taken from Lord Hoffmann’s speech in R (on the application of Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2005] UKHL 29 at [18]–[30], [2005] 2 FCR 183 at [18]–[30], [2006] 1 All ER 487:
‘[WP was] first introduced by the Widows’, Orphans’ and Old Age Contributory Pension Act 1925. The Act provided a pension of 10...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Humphreys v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
...The same principles were applied to the sex discrimination involved in denying widow's pensions to men in Runkee v United Kingdom [2007] 2 FCR 178, para 36. If they apply to the direct sex discrimination involved in Stec and Runkee, they must, as the Court of Appeal observed (para 50), appl......
-
SC and 3 Children v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
...were involved, the cases of Zeman v Austria (Application No 23960/02) (unreported) given 29 June 2006 and Runkee v United Kingdom [2007] 2 FCR 178 both concerned differential treatment on the ground of sex in relation to entitlement to widows' benefits. In each case, the court repeated what......
-
Secretary of State for Defence v Helen Nicholas
...that is, unless the measure employed is manifestly disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. " ii) In Runkee v United Kingdom [2007] 2 FCR 178 the Court said at paragraphs 35ff:- "35…. A difference of treatment is, …, discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification;......
-
JT JR 4047 2014
...of state benefits. The same principles were applied to the sex discrimination involved in denying widow’s pensions to men in Runkee v UK [2007] 2 FCR 178 at 189 (para. 36). If they apply to the direct sex discrimination involved in Stec v UK and Runkee v UK, they must, as the Court of Appea......