European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> DAVIS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 60946/00 [2007] ECHR 115 (6 February 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/115.html
Cite as: [2007] ECHR 115

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF DAVIS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

(Applications nos. 60946/00, 60978/00, 61399/00 and 61408/00)

JUDGMENT

(Friendly settlement)

STRASBOURG

6 February 2007

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Davis and Others v. the United Kingdom,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J. Casadevall, President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2007

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

The case originated in four applications (nos. 60946/00, 60978/00, 61399/00 and 61408/00) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Paul Davis, Mr Kevin P Hutton, Mr Dennis Thomas and Mr Grahame D Rourke, respectively on 25 August 2000, 10 June 2000 respectively and 15 September 2000 in the case of the last two applicants.

The applicants were all represented before the Court by Pierce Glynn Solicitors, London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The applicants complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because they were men, they were denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.

4 By partial decision of 10 October 2001 the Court decided to communicate these applications. On 8 April 2003, after obtaining the parties’ observations, the Court declared these applications admissible in so far as the complaints concerned Widowed Mother’s Allowance and declared the remainder of each application inadmissible.

THE FACTS

A. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. Mr Davis

Mr Davis was born in 1953 and lives in North Somerset.

His wife died on 18 September 1998. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 16 May 2000 and was rejected on 19 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. A formal decision was made by the Benefits Agency on 7 August 2000. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.

B. Mr Hutton

The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Berkshire.

His wife died on 7 July 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 12 January 2000 and was rejected later in January 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.

C. Mr Thomas

The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Somerset.

His wife died on 14 January 1991. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 12 May 2000 and was rejected on 13 June 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.

D. Mr Rourke