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 >>
HANCOCK AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 63470/00 [2007] ECHR 199 (6 March 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/199.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 199
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF HANCOCK AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Applications
nos. 63470/00, 63473/00, 63474/00, 63645/00 and 63702/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
Settlement)
STRASBOURG
6 March
2007
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Hancock and Others v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
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 13 February 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in five applications (nos. 63470/00, 63473/00,
63474/00, 63645/00 and 63702/00) 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 Neville Hancock, Mr
Malcolm Mawer, Mr Philip G. Morrison, Mr David J. Mann and Mr Ian P.
Northwood, respectively on 26 September 2000, 28 September 2000 and
29 September 2000 in the case of the last three 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.
By
a partial decision of 4 December 2001 the Court decided to
communicate these applications, and to join them to other
applications (nos. 60525/00, 60933/00, 60937/00, 60944/00, 61038/00,
61388/00, 61949/00, 62776/00, 63388/00, 63464/00, 63469/00, 63584/00,
63701/00, 64735/01 and 65723/01).
On
26 August 2003, after obtaining the parties' observations, the Court
declared these applications admissible in so far as the complaints
concerned Widow's Payment and Widowed Mother's Allowance and declared
the remainder of each application inadmissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Mr Hancock
The
applicant was born in 1967 and lives in East Sussex.
His
wife died on 7 April 2000, leaving him with two children born in 1995
and 1997. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 23 May 2000 and
was rejected on 25 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 such social security benefits were payable to
widowers under United Kingdom law.
B. Mr Mawer
The
applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Worcestershire.
His
wife died on 11 December 1997, leaving him with two children born in
1989 and 1993. His claim for widows' benefits was made in January
1998 and was rejected on 15 January 1998 on the ground that he was
not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The
applicant asked for his claim to be re-opened on 1 May 2000 and it
was again rejected on 9 May 2000. The applicant did not appeal as he
considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail
since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under
United Kingdom law.
C. Mr Morrison
The
applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Hertfordshire.
His wife died on 11 April 2000, leaving him with three children born
in 1985, 1986 and 1989. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 9
June 2000 and was rejected on 6 July 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 such social security benefits
were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
D. Mr Mann
The
applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Middlesex.
His
wife died on 3 July 2000, leaving him with two children born in 1986
and 1987. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 21 August 2000
and was rejected on 5 September 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 such social security benefits
were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
E. Mr Northwood
The
applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Bedford.
His
wife died on 4 August 2000, leaving him with two children born in
1993 and 1996. His claim for widows' benefits was made on
15 September 2000 and was rejected on 22 September 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 such
social security benefits were payable to widowers under United
Kingdom law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
The
relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's
judgment in the case of 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.
By
letters of 12 and 15 May 2006 and 9 November 2006 the applicants'
representatives notified the Court that Mr Hancock had been offered
GBP 10,321.69, Mr Mawer had been offered GBP 25,820.51, Mr Mann
had been offered GBP 9,436.73, Mr Morrison had been offered GBP
10,623.29 and Mr Northwood had been offered GBP 4,662.58 and that
they had accepted payment.
The
representatives were sent letters by the Court on 30 October
2006 in respect of Mr Hancock and 6 October 2006 in respect of Mr
Mawer requesting confirmation that no aspects of the applicants'
claims were ongoing and informing them that the Court might consider
striking out the case from its list in its entirety. By a letter of
14 December 2006 and 20 October 2006 respectively, the
representatives confirmed that there were no outstanding claims and
that the proceedings could be concluded.
The
representatives were sent letters by the Court on 6 November 2006 in
respect of Mr Mann, 16 November 2006 in respect of Mr Morrison, and
15 November 2006 in respect of Mr Northwood, stating that the
applicants had no outstanding claims and/or informing them that the
Court might consider striking out the case from its list in its
entirety. The representatives have not sent letters objecting to the
striking out of the applications.
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 March 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall Registrar President
