European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 65901/01
by John CROOK
against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 May 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 1 November 2000,

Having regard to the partial decision of 15 October 2002,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr John Crook, is a British national who was born in 1960 and lives in Lancashire. He was represented before the Court by Mr John Clinch, 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 15 January 2000, leaving one child born in 1989. On 6 July 2000 the applicant applied for widows’ benefits. On 20 July 2000 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. On 31 July 2000 the applicant asked for reconsideration. On 3 October 2000 the matter was reconsidered and the decision remained unchanged. 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 benefit was 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.

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

On 15 May 2006 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant’s representative a letter enclosing a copy of the Government’s letter regarding the admissibility of the application and warning him that failure to contact the Court by 9 June 2006 might lead the Court to strike the case out of its list. The applicant’s representative did not reply. On 18 March 2008 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant’s representative another letter by registered mail stating that since he had not made contact, the Court would consider striking out the application out of the list for lack of interest. The applicant’s legal representative has not contacted the Court since.

In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols which require the continuation of the examination of the application.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the remainder of the application out of the list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
Registrar President