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 >>
ARKWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 47289/99 [2007] ECHR 743 (25 September 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/743.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 743
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF ARKWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 47289/99)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25
September 2007
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Arkwell 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 Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4
September 2007
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 47289/99) against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the
European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”)
under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr
Daryl Shaun Arkwell (“the applicant”) on 2 October 1998.
The
applicant was represented before the Court by Ms J. Starling, a
solicitor practising in London. 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
11 May 1999 the Court decided to communicate this application. On 7
March 2000, after obtaining the parties' observations, the Court
declared this application admissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Gloucestershire.
His
wife died in March 1998, leaving two children born in 1984 and 1988.
His claim for widows' benefits was made on 14 March 1998 and was
rejected on 15 September 1998 on the ground that he was not entitled
to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not
appeal further 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.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
The
domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Willis v.
the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 14-26, ECHR
2002-IV.
COMPLAINTS
The
applicant complained that British social security legislation
discriminated against him on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14
of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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.
On
23 April 2007 the applicant's representative notified the Court that
Mr Arkwell had been offered GBP 18,195.71 in respect of his claim for
WPt and/or WMA and that he had accepted payment. The applicant's
representative further requested the Court to adjourn the claim for
Widow's Pension. On 30 April 2007 the applicant's representative was
sent a letter by the Registry stating that the Court would consider
striking the case out of its list in respect of the claim which has
been settled, while the claim in respect of Widow's Pension would be
adjourned until the Court's lead judgment on that issue, Runkee
and White v. the United Kingdom (nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99),
delivered on 10 May 2007, had become final (see paragraph 13 below).
The representative has not sent a letter objecting to the striking
out of the former claim. On 3 August 2007 the applicant's
representative was sent another letter by the Registry stating that
the latter judgment had become final on 25 July 2007 following the
parties' notification that neither side intended to seek referral of
the case to the Grand Chamber (Article 44 § 2 (a) of the
Convention).
The
Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties in
respect of WPt and/or WMA (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).
In
respect of Mr Arkwell's claim regarding Widow's Pension (“WP”),
it is noted that his children are now 23 and 19 years of age and it
is possible that a woman in his position would have ceased to be
entitled to WMA and become entitled to WP.
In
the Court's lead judgment regarding WP the Court held that at its
origin, and until its abolition in respect of women whose spouses
died after 9 April 2001, WP was intended to correct “factual
inequalities” between older widows, as a group, and the rest of
the population and that this difference in treatment was reasonably
and objectively justified. Moreover, the Court considered that the
United Kingdom could not be criticised for not having abolished WP
earlier and that it was not unreasonable of the legislature to decide
to introduce the reform slowly (see Runkee and White v. the United
Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007). The
Court, consequently, did not find a violation of Article 14 taken in
conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the
non-payment to the applicants of Widow's Pension or equivalent (ibid
§ 42).
The
Court finds no reason to depart from these findings in the present
case.
There
has accordingly been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction
with Article
1 of Protocol No. 1.
In
conclusion, therefore, the Court strikes out of its list the
applicant's complaints as regards Widow's Payment and Widowed
Mother's Allowance and finds no violation in respect of the
applicant's complaint as regards Widow's Pension.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike out of its list of cases the
complaints about non entitlement to a Widow's Payment and
Widowed Mother's Allowance;
Holds unanimously that there has been no
violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the applicant's complaint
about his non entitlement to a Widow's Pension.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 September 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Josep Casadevall
Deputy
Registrar President
