13, 29 BHRC 22 Carson and the 12 other applicants appealed the decision from the ECHR Fourth Section. The case was heard publicly in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Grand Chamber in Strasbourg, France on 2 September 2009 and 27 January 2010, with judgment handed down on 16 March 2010. This was appealed before Jean-Paul Costa (President); Christos Rozakis; Nicolas Bratza; Peer Lorenzen; Françoise Tulkens; Josep Casadevall; Karel Jungwiert; Nina Vajić; Dean Spielmann; Renate Jaeger; Danutė Jočienė; Ineta Ziemele; Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre; Päivi Hirvelä; Luis López Guerra; Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska; Zdravka Kalaydjieva. The applicants argued that their following human rights had been violated:para 52 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to property on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with Article 14 (six applicants) The applicants argued that they were being discriminated against because they were not receiving the annual increase to their UK state pension whilst others in a similar position to them were. The Court maintained that, under UK domestic law and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants do not have a right to receive the annual uprating. This had been dismissed by the ECHR Fourth Section and could not be appealed.para 57 The Court did not accept the UK Government's objections to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for the 12 applicants that had not filed domestic proceedings in the UK, and given that Carson had already brought test cases which had failed in the UK domestic courts, there was no point in the applicants litigating in the UK.para 58 The applicants maintained that the treating of "residence" was an aspect of "personal status" and was consistent with case law. In addition, their position is that whilst moving abroad is a question of "free choice" it is not so if it is driven by the need or desire to be close to family members.para 67 The government had conceded in the UK domestic courts that Carson's "foreign residence" was protected under Article 14, but argued that moving abroad was a matter of choice.para 68 The third parties, Age Concern and Help the Aged, emphasised the importance of family support in old age.para 69 The government argued that National Insurance contributions paid into the National Insurance Fund cannot be equated to contributions to occupational or private