European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 28082/02
by Peter STANCILL
against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 September 2001,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Peter Stancill, is a British national who was born in 1954 and lives in Sheffield. He was represented before the Court by Royds Rdw, solicitors 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 2 July 2000. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 7 July 2000 and was rejected on 14 July 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. On 24 July 2000 the applicant appealed and on 29 August 2000 reconsideration took place. The previous decision was upheld. 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 and Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007.

COMPLAINT

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

The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides that the six-month period runs from the final decision in the process of exhaustion. The Court has applied the six months' time-limit in these types of cases as running from the date of the final refusal of benefits following a claim (see, e.g., Barrow and others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 68175/01, 68928/01, 69327/01, 13944/02, (dec.) 13 December 2005). The final refusal in the present case is dated 29 August 2000 and therefore more than six months before the introduction of the case before the Court. It follows that this complaint is inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares inadmissible the application.

Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
Registrar President