European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> CREW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 61928/00 [2007] ECHR 7 (9 January 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/7.html
Cite as: [2007] ECHR 7

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

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF CREW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

(Application no. 61928/00)

JUDGMENT

(Friendly settlement)

STRASBOURG

9 January 2007

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

In the case of Crew 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 Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 8 April 2003 and on 5 December 2006,

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

PROCEDURE

. The case originated in an application (no. 61928/00) 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 Ian Martin Crew on 25 September 2000.

The applicant was not represented before the Court. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because he was a man, he was denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.

On 8 April 2003, after obtaining the parties’ observations, the Court declared the applications admissible in so far as this complaint concerned Widowed Mother’s Allowance. A further complaint concerning future pension claims was declared inadmissible on the same date.

THE FACTS

The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Hyde.

His wife died on 2 October 1998. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 18 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. The applicant appealed on 7 June 2000 and received a reply on 19 September 2000 rejecting his claim. The applicant did not appeal further as he was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.

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.