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 >>
SINCLAIR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 68621/01 [2007] ECHR 786 (9 October 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/786.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 786
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF SINCLAIR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 68621/01)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
9
October 2007
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sinclair 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 12 March 2002 and on 18 September 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned
date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 68621/01) 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 Stewart
Sinclair (“the applicant”) on 28 November 2000.
The applicant was represented before the Court by P.
Glynn, solicitors 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 and tax benefits equivalent to those received by
widows.
By
a partial decision of 12 March 2002 the Court decided to communicate
this application. On 4 November 2003, after obtaining the parties'
observations, the Court declared the application admissible in so far
as the complaint concerned widow's benefits and Bereavement Tax
Allowance.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1952 and lives in London.
The
applicant's wife died on 9 November 1994, leaving two children, born
in 1987 and 1990. On 18 May 2000 the applicant applied for widow's
benefits. By a letter dated 14 June 2000, the Benefits Agency
informed him that it was unable to pay him any of the benefits
claimed because he was not a woman. On 30 June 2000 the applicant
appealed to an independent appeal tribunal. On 17 November 2000, the
tribunal struck out his appeal.
On
11 September 2000 the applicant contacted the Inland Revenue and
applied for widow's Bereavement Tax Allowance (“WBA”) for
the years 1994/5 and 1995/6. By a response dated 14 September 2000,
he was informed that he did not qualify for WBA, since he was a man
and the law provided only for payments to widows.
The
applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that
such a remedy would be bound to fail since no social security or tax
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 and Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00,
63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, 26 March 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The
applicant complained that British social security and tax 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.
By
a letter of 15 May 2006 the applicant's legal representatives
informed the Court that Mr Sinclair had been offered GBP 10,352.01 in
respect of his claims for WPt and/or WMA and that he had accepted
payment.
On
22 May 2007 the applicant's legal representative notified the Court
that in accordance with the Court's case-law the Government had
agreed to pay Mr Sinclair's costs of pursuing his application
relating to WBA. On 6 June 2007 the Government confirmed the
agreement on costs and that in accordance with the Court's lead
judgment in Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00,
63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, 26 March 2007, Mr Sinclair had
suffered a violation of his rights.
Consequently,
in view of the settlement reached and given that there were no
outstanding claims, on 18 June 2007 the Registry sent the applicant's
legal representatives a letter stating that the Court would consider
striking the application out of its list of cases.
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 and
its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention
and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
Accordingly,
the remainder of the application should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its
list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T. L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
