BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF HYDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application no. 63287/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly Settlement)
STRASBOURG
5 September 2006
This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Hyde 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 M.
Pellonpää,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr J.
Šikuta, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 April 2003 and 11 July 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an application 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
Lee Gary Hyde, a British national, on 22 October 2000.
- Mr Hyde was not represented before the Court. 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 that, because he was a man, he was denied social security
benefits equivalent to those received by female widows.
- After obtaining the parties’ observations, the
Court declared the application admissible on 8 April 2003.
THE FACTS
A. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- Mr Hyde was born on 8 March 1962 and lives in
Upminster.
- His wife died on 7 September 1996. He was left with two
children, aged 6 and 7 respectively. His claim for Widowed Mother’s
Allowance made on 17 June 2000 was rejected on the ground that he was
not entitled because he was not a woman. His appeal was refused on
15 September 2000.
B. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The relevant domestic law and practice are described in
the Court’s judgment in Willis v. the United Kingdom,
no. 36042/97, §§ 14 26, ECHR 2002-IV.
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 is 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.
- In November 2005 the Government notified the Court that
Mr Hyde had been offered GBP 8,703.53 and had accepted payment. On 18
May 2006 Mr Hyde informed the Court that he had accepted the
Government’s offer.
- 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 or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of
the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
- Accordingly, the application should be struck out of
the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the application out of its case list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 September 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
