STEC AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - Decision on the admissibility of applications

Sep 15, 2026

Grand Chamber decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the admissibility of two joined applications lodged by STEC and others against the United Kingdom. The Court sets out its procedural position following a relinquishment by the Fourth Section and a joint examination decision, then determines to examine admissibility and merits separately. The facts summarise individual applicants’ employment-related illnesses or injuries, subsequent entitlement to Reduced Earnings Allowance, and replacement by Retirement Allowance, including domestic appeals and references to the ECJ.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages20

Reading Time50 min

AccessFree to download

STEC AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Decision as to the admissibility of applications

The facts

A. The circumstances of the case

Mrs Hepple

Mrs Stec

Mr Lunn

Mrs Spencer

CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GRAND CHAMBER DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Applications nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01 by STEC and Others against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 6 July 2005 as a Grand Chamber composed of: Mr L. WILDHABER, President, Mr C.L. ROZAKIS, Sir Nicolas BRATZA, Mr B.M. ZUPANČIČ, Mr L. LOUCAIDES, Mr J. CASADEVALL, Mr J. HEDIGAN, Mr M. PELLONPÄÄ, Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, Mr R. MARUSTE, Mr K. TRAJA, Mr A. KOVLER, Mr S. PAVLOVSCHI, Mr L. GARLICKI, Mr J. BORREGO BORREGO, Mr D. SPIELMANN, Mr E. MYJER, judges and Mr P.J. MAHONEY, Registrar, Having regard to the above-mentioned applications lodged on 20 November 2000 and 30 January 2001 respectively, Having regard to the decision of 24 August 2004 by which the Chamber of the Fourth Section, to which the applications had initially been assigned, 2 STEC AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72 of the Rules of Court), Having regard to the President’s decision of 5 January 2005 to examine jointly the admissibility and the merits of the applications (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 54A § 3), Having regard to the observations on the admissibility and merits of the applications submitted by the applicants and the Government, Having regard to the parties’ oral observations at the hearing on 9 March 2005, Having deliberated on 9 March and 6 July 2005, Decides to disapply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to examine the admissibility and the merits ofthe applications separately, and Delivers the following decision: THE FACTS 1. The first applicant, Regina Hepple, was born in 1933 and lives in Wakefield. The second applicant, Anna Stec, was born in 1933 and lives in Stoke-on-Trent. The third applicant, Patrick Lunn, was born in 1923 and lives in Stockton-on-Tees. The fourth applicant, Sybil Spencer, was born in 1926 and lives in Bury. The fifth applicant, Oliver Kimber, was born in 1924 and lives in Pevensey. 2. At the hearing on 9 March 2005, the applicants were represented by Mr R. Drabble QC and Ms H. Mountfield, counsel. The first, second, third and fourth applicants were also represented by Ms J. Starling, and the fifth applicant was represented by Mr J. Clinch, both solicitors practising in London. The respondent Government were represented by Mr D. Pannick QC and Ms C. Weir, counsel, and also by their Agent, Mr D. Walton, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. A. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts ofthe case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1. Mrs Hepple 4. On 28 January 1987 the first applicant began to suffer from tenosynovitis, an industrial disease. From 27 January 1989 she was unable to continue working and received Reduced Earnings Allowance (“REA” – see paragraph 16 below) . On 15 April 1993 she reached the age of 60 and on 1 May 1996 an adjudication officer decided that, with effect from 31 March 1996, her award of REA should be replaced by an award of Retirement Allowance (“RA” – see paragraph 20 below) . STEC AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION 3 5. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Wakefield Social Security Appeal Tribunal (“the SSAT”), on the basis that, had she been aman of the same age, she would have continued to receive REA, which was more valuable. The SSAT rejected her appeal on 5 September 1996 and the applicant appealed to the Social Security Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) . 6. All five applicants’ cases were joined by the Commissioner who, having heard arguments on 11 and 12 December 1997, decided on 8 May 1998 to refer three questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ – see paragraph 23 below) . 7. The ECJ gave judgment on 23 May 2000 (see paragraph 23 below) . On 31 July 2000 the C

FAQs

What court issued this decision and in what formation?

It was issued by the European Court of Human Rights in the Grand Chamber formation.

What was the subject of the decision?

The decision concerns the admissibility of applications lodged by STEC and others against the United Kingdom.

How did the Court address the relationship between admissibility and the merits?

The Court decided to disapply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to examine admissibility and merits separately.

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by wps_ap_test_251126_0180