EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 30548/96
Helen MacGregor
against
the United Kingdom
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 1 July 1998)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
PART I :
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
3
PART II :
SOLUTION REACHED
5
INTRODUCTION
1.
This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Helen
MacGregor against the United Kingdom on 15 January 1996. It was registered on 22
March 1996 under file No. 30548/96.
2.
The applicant was represented by Mr Luke Clements of Thorpes, solicitors,
Hereford.
3.
The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their Agent, Mr
M.R. Eaton, of Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.
4.
On 3 December 1997 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the application
admissible . It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the
Convention which provides as follows:
"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to it:
a.
it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake together with the
representatives of the parties an examination of the petition and, if need be, an
investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all
necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the Commission;
b.
it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned
with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for
Human Rights as defined in this Convention."
5.
The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly
settlement of the case and on 1 July 1998 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance
with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and
of the solution reached.
6.
The following members were present when the Report was adopted:
MM
Mrs
MM
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
J. LIDDY
L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
Mrs
Mr
A. PERENIČ
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
M. HION
R. NICOLINI
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
7.
The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1970 and resident at Dorset.
8.
The applicant, after her marriage in December 1994, reduced her working hours
in order to be able to devote more attention to her son, who was then four years old, and
her husband, a wheelchair user severely disabled after an accident.
9.
The applicant did so in the anticipation that her loss of income would be
compensated by reduced taxation in the form of an increased income tax allowance, the
additional personal allowance, awarded to tax paying workers with young children,
whose spouses are totally incapacitated.
10.
The applicant expected to be able to claim this additional personal allowance by
virtue of Section 259 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. By notification
dated 13 March 1995 the applicant was advised that her tax coding included the
additional personal allowance at the current rate of £1,720.00 per annum. However, this
allowance was then rescinded by a notice of the Inland Revenue dated 23 March 1995.
11.
The applicant appealed against this decision. By letter of 27 September 1995 the
Inland Revenue stated that:
"... the Government's ruling is still that the additional personal allowance is not to
be extended to women with incapacitated husbands. ...
The arrangement whereby a married man with children whose wife is totally
incapacitated is able to claim the additional personal allowance whereas a wife in similar
circumstances cannot has its roots in a time when Social Security provision for the
disabled was much less comprehensive than it is now. Up to 1960 married men with
incapacitated wives qualified for the housekeeper allowance available to widows and
widowers. That allowance was introduced nearly 70 years ago to meet the situation
where a female relative or other person - usually a female - living in the home of a widow
or widower was employed either to take care of young children or as a resident
housekeeper.
When the additional personal allowance was introduced in 1960 for those with
single handed responsibility for children it was extended - in place of the housekeeper
allowance - to married men with dependent children whose wives were totally
incapacitated. It was considered at the time that a wife who was wholly incapacitated
was not able to play an active part in looking after the home and children. ...
It is recognised that the thinking behind the provision may well be regarded
anachronistic, particularly in view of the introduction of independent taxation of
husbands and wives. Indeed the housekeeper allowance and some other minor allowances
were abolished in 1988 largely because they were out of tune with modern society. At
the time the Government considered whether this aspect of the additional personal
allowance should be abolished since its main purpose has in any case been largely
superseded by the development of the Social Security system which is regarded as a
better vehicle than reliefs for delivering cash assistance to those with special needs."
12.
The applicant complains that as a result of the application of Section 259 of the
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, she has been a victim of a violation of Article
14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She maintains that
if she was male, she would be entitled to be exempted from part of her income tax, but
because she is female she is not. She claims that there is no justification for this
discriminatory treatment based on sex.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
13.
Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission
(First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a
friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and
invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.
14.
In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the
Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a
friendly settlement.
15.
By letters of 24 December 1997 and 19 March 1998 the parties indicated their
willingness, in principle, to reach a friendly settlement.
16.
After an exchange of correspondence, the parties agreed that the application could
be settled on payment by the Government to the applicant of a sum of £1,000 in respect
of the income tax years 1994/95 to 1996/97, with relief for subsequent years being given
through the tax system once the Finance Bill has been enacted. The parties further agreed
on a sum of £4,406.25 to be paid by way of costs and expenses incurred in the matter.
17.
At its session on 1 July 1998, the Commission noted that the parties had reached
an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to
Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been
secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.
18.
For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO
Secretary
to the First Chamber
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
President
of the First Chamber