British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
HART AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 61019/00 [2007] ECHR 116 (6 February 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/116.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 116
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF HART AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Applications
nos. 61019/00, 61394/00, 61398/00, 63471/00, and 63481/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
Settlement)
STRASBOURG
6
February 2007
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Hart 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 five applications (nos. 61019/00, 61394/00,
61398/00, 63471/00, and 63481/00) 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 Hart, Mr Patrick
Clancy, Mr Durham Burt, Mr David Hill and Mr Jeffrey Lewis on 2
August 2000, 15 September 2000, 15 September 2000, 28 September 2000
and 29 September 2000 respectively.
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.
By
partial decision of 15 January 2002 the Court decided to communicate
these applications. It also decided to join these applications to
other applications (nos. 5837/00, 60274/00, 60940/00, 61781/00,
62966/00, 63476/00, 63478/00 and 63507/00).
5. On
6 May 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 Hart
Mr
Hart was born in 1957 and lives in West Sussex.
His
wife died on 10 May 1994. His claim for widows’ benefits was
made on October 1997 and again in February 2000 and was rejected on
29 February 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.
B. Mr Clancy
Mr
Clancy was born in 1950 and lives in Cornwall.
His
wife died on 17 November 1997. He tried to claim for benefits in late
November 1997 but was told he was not entitled. His actual claim for
widows’ benefits was then made on 26 May 2000 and was rejected
on 2 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.
C. Mr Burt
Mr
Burt was born in 1950 and lives in Edinburgh.
His
wife died on 17 February 1997. His claim for widows’ benefits
was made on 23 May 2000 and was rejected on 30 May 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 Hill
Mr
Hill was born in 1939 and lives in Carmathenshire.
His
wife died on 28 March 1993. His claim for widows’ benefits was
made on 28 May 1993 but the Benefits Agency did not accept to process
his claim. He wrote to the Benefits Agency again on 8 May 2000 and
was rejected on 15 May 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.
E. Mr Lewis
Mr
Lewis was born in 1944 and lives in Newport.
His
wife died on 11 July 1995. His claim for widows’ benefits was
made in April 1999 and was rejected on 17 May 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.
B. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
The
relevant domestic law and practice are described in the Court’s
judgment in Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97,
§§ 14 26, ECHR 2002-IV.
THE LAW
By
a letter of 11 May 2005 the respondent Government informed the Court
that the House of Lords had decided, in relation to the claims for
Widowed Mother’s Allowance (WMA) and Widow’s Payment
(WPt), that there was in principle no objective justification at the
relevant time for not paying these benefits to widowers as well as
widows, but that the Government had a defence under section 6 of the
Human Rights Act 1998 (the HRA). It noted that, in view of this, the
multitude of cases before the Court and the fact that the HRA defence
was only applicable in the domestic arena, the Government were
prepared, in principle, to settle all claims made by widowers against
the United Kingdom arising out of the arrangements applicable prior
to April 2001 for the payment of WMA and WPt.
In
May 2006 the respondent Government sent a list of applicants who had
been proposed a settlement of their claims and who had accepted such
payments, including the present applicants.
18.
On the 15 May 2006 the applicants’ representative notified the
Court that Mr Hart had been offered GBP 11,016.11, Mr Clancy had been
offered GBP 10,564.06, Mr Burt had been offered GBP 7,162.40, Mr Hill
had been offered GBP 7,062.08 and Mr Lewis had been offered GBP
8,392.56, and they had accepted payment. The representative was sent
a letter on 13 October 2006 requesting a confirmation that no aspects
of the applicants’ claims were ongoing and that consequently
the Court would consider striking out each case from its list in its
entirety. By a letter of 9 November 2006 the representative confirmed
that there were no outstanding claims, thus the proceedings could be
concluded.
The
Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties
(Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement
is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or
its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention
and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
Accordingly,
the applications should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Decides to
disjoin the
applications from the others to which they were joined.
Decides to strike the applications out of the
list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 February 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
