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 >>
TERRIL AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 60469/00 [2007] ECHR 43 (16 January 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/43.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 43
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF TERRIL AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Applications
nos. 60469/00; 60949/00; 63465/00; 63472/00; 63483/00; 64008/00 and
64115/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
16 January
2007
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Terrill 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 M.
Pellonpää,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr J.
Šikuta, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 December 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in seven applications (nos. 60469/00; 60949/00;
63465/00; 63472/00; 63483/00; 64008/00 and 64115/00) 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 Norman Terril, Mr John Silkstone, Mr Paul Blannin, Mr David
Lines, Mr Nigel Harrison, Mr Simon Turner and Mr Victor Hyland,
respectively on 26 July 2000, 25 August 2000, 28 September 2000, 26
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 10 October 2001 the Chamber decided to
communicate the applications. After obtaining the parties’
observations, the Court declared these applications admissible on 8
April 2003.
THE FACTS
A. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Mr Terril
Mr
Terril was born on 25 April 1956 and lives in London.
His
wife died on 2 October 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was
made on 9 March 2000 and was rejected on 24 March 2000 on the ground
that he was not entitled to widow’s 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 social security
benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
B. Mr Silkstone
Mr
Silkstone was born on 27 February 1951 and lives in Lancashire.
His
wife died on 19 October 1998. His claim for widows’ benefits
was made on 24 November 1999 and was rejected on 28 February 2000 on
the ground that he was not entitled to widow’s 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 social
security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
C. Mr Blannin
Mr
Blannin was born on 5 October 1948 and lives in Cirencester.
His
wife died on 30 March 1993. His claim for widows’ benefits was
made on 18 July 2000 and was rejected on 28 July 2000 on the ground
that he was not entitled to widow’s 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 social security
benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
D. Mr Lines
Mr
Lines was born on 26 January 1954 and lives in Edinburgh.
His wife died on 20 January 2000. His claim for
widows’ benefits was made on 13 June 2000 and was rejected on
27 June 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widow’s
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 social security benefits were payable to widowers under
United Kingdom Law.
E. Mr Harrison
Mr
Harrison was born on 28 November 1951 and lives in Staffordshire.
His
wife died on 5 May 1996. His claim for widows’ benefits was
made on 4 May 2000 and was rejected on 6 June 2000 on the ground that
he was not entitled to widow’s 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 social security
benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
F. Mr Turner
Mr
Turner was born on 7 November 1955 and lives in Cardiff.
His
wife died on 8 April 2000. His claim for widows’ benefits was
made in August 2000 and was rejected on 16 August 2000 on the ground
that he was not entitled to widow’s 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 social security
benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
G. Mr Hyland
Mr
Hyland was born on 7 June 1959 and lives in Kent.
His
wife died on 26 January 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits
was made on 3 September 2000 and was rejected on 11 September 2000 on
the ground that he was not entitled to widow’s 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 social
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.
On
the 12 May 2006 the applicants’ representatives notified the
Court that Mr Terrill had been offered GBP 11,083.46, Mr Silkstone
had been offered GBP 16,967.91, Mr Blannin had been offered GBP
4,508.09, Mr Lines had been offered GBP 11,652.35, Mr Harrison
had been offered GBP 10,590.76, Mr Turner had been offered GBP
5,220.21 and Mr Hyland had been offered GBP 8,022.3 and they had
accepted payment. The representatives were sent a letter by the Court
on 6 October 2006 requesting a confirmation that no aspects of the
applicants’ claims were ongoing and that consequently the Court
might consider striking out each case from its list in its entirety.
By a letter of 20 October 2006 the representatives confirmed that
there were no outstanding claims, thus the proceedings could be
concluded.
The
Court takes note of the agreements reached between the parties
(Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlements
are 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 of cases.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 January 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T. L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
