(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual relationship.
Held: (majority) They were not in an analogous situation to civil partners because marriage and civil partnership were different forms of relationship from siblingship.
Judge Bjorgvinsson said that the comparison should focus, not on the differences in legal framework, but on the differences in the nature of the relationship as such.
‘The Court recalls that, in order to be able to lodge a petition in pursuance of Art. 34, a person, non-governmental association or group of individuals must be able to claim ‘to be the victim of a violation . . of the rights set forth in the Convention.’ In order to claim to be a victim of a violation, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure … It is, however, open to a person to contend that a law violates his rights, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if he is required either to modify his conduct or risk being prosecuted or if he is a member of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation. Thus in (Marckz v Belgium) 1979-80 2 EHRR 330 the applicants, a single mother and her five-year-old ‘illegitimate’ daughter, were found to be directly affected by, and thus victims of, legislation which would, inter alia limit the child’s right to inherit property from her mother upon the mother’s eventual death, since the law automatically applied to all children born out of wedlock.’
Bjorgvinsson J
13378/05, [2008] ECHR 357, Times 07-May-2008, [2008] 18 EG 126, (2008) 47 EHRR 38, [2008] WTLR 1129, [2008] 2 FCR 244, 10 ITL Rep 772, [2008] STC 1305, 24 BHRC 709, [2008] 18 EG 126, [2008] 2 FLR 787, [2008] BTC 8099, [2008] Fam Law 628,
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Burden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Sep-2007
The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual relationship. . .
See Also – Burden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Dec-2006
Sisters,Together always not Discriminated Against
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives and owned property jointly. They complained that the Inheritance Tax regime treated them worse than it would a married couple, and was discriminatory.
Held: . .
Cited – Burden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2008
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual . .
Cited by:
Cited – Burden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2008
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual . .
Cited – Rodriguez v Minister of Housing of The Government and Another PC 14-Dec-2009
Gibraltar – The claimant challenged a public housing allocation policy which gave preference to married couples and parents of children, excluding same sex and infertile couples.
Held: The aim of discouraging homosexual relationships is . .
Cited – Axa General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
axaReSCS201
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales) SC 9-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered.
Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Inheritance Tax, Discrimination
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.270743