International Journal of Discrimination and the Law Pub Date : 2021-04-29 , DOI: 10.1177/13582291211011432 Pauline Roberts 1
This commentary examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Delve and Glynn) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which concerned the judicial review of the incremental increase of the state pension age in the United Kingdom for women born in the 1950s. It focuses on the claims of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the discussion relating to indirect sex/sex and age discrimination. It is argued that there is scope for greater clarity in the Court’s reasoning which led to its conclusion that the measures did not result in indirect discrimination contrary to Article 14. However, the dismissal of each appeal is not surprising, in view of the adoption of the ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’ test when scrutinising decisions relating to social welfare policy. In other words, even if the measures resulted in indirect sex discrimination, they were justified.
中文翻译:
英国州养老金年龄均等化:间接的性别歧视?
本评论评论了上诉法院在R(Delve and Glynn)诉工作和退休金国务卿案中的裁决,这涉及对1950年代出生的联合王国州退休金年龄递增的司法审查。它着重于违反《欧洲人权公约》第十四条的歧视主张,特别是有关间接性别/性别和年龄歧视的讨论。据认为,法院的推理有更大的空间,导致法院得出这样的结论,即这些措施并未导致违反第十四条的间接歧视。但是,鉴于通过了第十四条,每项上诉的驳回并不令人惊讶。在审查与社会福利政策有关的决定时进行“明显没有合理基础”测试。换句话说,即使这些措施导致了间接的性别歧视,这些措施也是有道理的。