Date of the decision: October, 24
Country: United Kingdom
Jurisdiction: European Court of Human Rights
Legal Basis: Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that there had been no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the first applicant, and, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the second applicant.
The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that new rules on housing benefit in the social housing sector (informally known as “the bedroom tax”) discriminated against them because of their particular situations: the first applicant cares for a disabled daughter while the second is a victim of domestic violence. Both live in specially adapted homes.
The Court held that the applicants were particularly prejudiced by the measure, which leads to a reduction in rental subsidy if occupants have more bedrooms than they are entitled to under the legislation, with the aim of incentivising them to move house.
It concluded that Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs), which can make up shortfalls in rent, allowed it to find that the difference in treatment in the first applicant’s case was justified.
However, that was not the case for the second applicant: she was part of another scheme whose aim was to allow victims of domestic violence to remain in their homes and the DHPs could not resolve the conflict between that aim and the aim of the bedroom tax, which was to incentivise her to move.
The Court found that the substance of the applicants’ complaints called for them to be examined under Article 14 and Protocol No.1 rather than under Article 8. The Court reiterated that people caring for a disabled child with whom they had close personal links and people, overwhelmingly women, who had suffered gender-based violence could claim the
protection of Article 14.
It also noted that any difference in treatment on the grounds set out in that provision was discriminatory if it had no “objective and reasonable justification”. States not only had to avoid
discrimination but also had a duty to make sure that people in significantly different situations were treated differently if necessary.
States had wide discretion (“wide margin of appreciation”) when introducing general economic or social measures, but they should not lead to discrimination. Any difference in the treatment of disabled people or on account of gender would require “very weighty reasons” to be justified or to be found to be in accordance with the Convention.
To learn more, read here.
English
Jurisdiction:
Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination
Article 1 Protocol 1 - Protection of property
Subject:
Discrimination
Right to property
Country:
