European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 27992/02
by Brian FULLICK
against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 October 2001,

Having regard to the partial decision of 12 November 2002,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Brian Fullick, is a British national who was born in 1940 and lives in Motherwell. 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 January 1993.

In June 1998 the applicant made an enquiry about the payment of social security survivors’ benefits with the Benefits Agency and was told that he was not entitled to any benefit.

On 29 May 2001 the applicant made a further enquiry with the Benefits Agency and on 11 June 2001 he was told that he was not entitled to any benefit because he was not a woman.

In September 2001 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance (“WBA”) to the Inland Revenue for the years 1997-1998. On 5 September 2001 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in United Kingdom law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.

On 19 September 2001 the applicant was informed by the Inland Revenue that pursuant to the settlement in another case raising similar issues, his claim had been registered as open and that he would be contacted again regarding the outcome.

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 relevant domestic law and practice are described in the Court’s judgment in the case of Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, 26 March 2007.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities’ refusal to grant him WBA or equivalent constituted discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

THE LAW

On 11 April 2007 the Registry requested the applicant’s representatives to confirm by 22 May 2007 whether a friendly settlement had been reached in the applicant’s case following the decision in Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom (cited above) and if not, to submit his claims under Article 41 of the Convention. The applicant’s representatives did not reply.

By letter dated 26 February 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representatives were notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. Attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Again the applicant’s representatives did not reply.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his 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.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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