European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 73620/01
by Michael Paul HEWITT
against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J. Casadevall, President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 August 2001,

Having regard to the partial decision of 8 October 2002,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of part of the case.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Michael Paul Hewitt, is a British national who was born in 1957 and lives in Luton. He was represented before the Court by Ms J Starling, a lawyer practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant’s wife died on 10 October 1997, leaving two children born in 1985 and 1990. His second claim for widows’ benefits was made on 11 May 2000 and was rejected on 15 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. On 2 June 2000 the applicant appealed. On 19 June 2002 the decision maker upheld the original decision. The applicant’s unsuccessful appeal was heard by an appeal tribunal on 18 September 2000. On 14 November 2000, the applicant applied for permission to appeal. On 10 December 2000 the applicant was notified that the Chair of the Tribunal refused to grant permission to appeal. The applicant re-applied for permission to appeal on 16 December 2000 and he was informed that his request was again refused on 21 February 2001. The applicant did not appeal further 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.  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.

By a letter of 16 January 2007 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that Mr Hewitt had been offered GBP 10,895.62 in respect of his claims for WPt and/or WMA and that he had accepted payment. She also confirmed the applicant’s wish not to pursue his complaints in respect of Widow’s Bereavement Allowance and Widow’s Pension.

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of WPt and/or WMA. 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).

The Court further notes that the applicant’s complaint in relation to Widow’s Bereavement Allowance was declared inadmissible in the partial decision of 8 October 2002.

In relation to his complaint in respect of Widow’s Pension, the Court considers that, following his request, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue this part of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.

T. L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President