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 CORCORAN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Applications
nos. 60525/00, 63464/00 and 63469/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
Settlement)
STRASBOURG
6
February 2007
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Corcoran and Others 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 K.
Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P.
Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in
private on 16 January 2007,
Delivers the following
judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in three applications (nos. 60525/00, 63464/00 and
63469/00) 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 Steven Corcoran, Mr Andrew Baker and Mr Alan
Graham on 17 June 2000, 28 September 2000 and 29 September 2000,
respectively.
- The
applicants were all represented before the Court by Pierce Glynn
Solicitors, London. The United Kingdom Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley
of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
- The applicants complained under Articles 8 and 14 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because they
were men, they were denied social security benefits equivalent to
those received by widows.
- By
partial decision of 4 December 2001 the Court decided to communicate
these applications. It also decided to join these applications to
other applications (nos. 60933/00, 60937/00, 60944/00, 61038/00,
61388/00, 61949/00, 62776/00, 63388/00, 63470/00, 63473/00, 63474/00,
63584/00, 63645/00, 63701/00, 63702/00, 64735/01 and 65723/01).
- On
26 August 2003, after obtaining the parties’ observations, the
Court declared these applications admissible in so far as the
complaints concerned Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s
Allowance and declared the remainder of each application
inadmissible.
THE FACTS
A. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Mr Corcoran
- Mr
Corcoran was born in 1966 and lives in Merseyside.
- His
wife died on 23 August 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was
made in October and November 1999 and was rejected on 10 November
1999 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits
because he was not a woman. He appealed against this decision and the
appeal tribunal dismissed his appeal on 17 January 2000 giving
reasons in a letter of 19 January 2000. The applicant did not appeal
again as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be
bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers
under United Kingdom Law.
B. Mr Baker
- Mr
Baker was born in 1959 and lives in Oldham.
- His
wife died on 8 July 2000. The applicant made enquiries to the
Benefits Agency in or around July/August 2000 and he was told he was
not entitled to such benefits. His claim for widows’ benefits
was then made on 1 September 2000 and was rejected on 8 September
2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits
because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he
considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail
since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United
Kingdom Law.
C. Mr Graham
- Mr
Graham was born in 1956 and lives in Lancs.
- His
wife died on 6 July 2000. His claim for widows’ benefits was
made on 14 August 2000 and was rejected on 21 August 2000 on the
ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he
was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was
advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security
benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
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
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.
- On
the 15 May 2006 the applicants’ representatives notified the
Court that Mr Corcoran had been offered GBP 12,254.99, Mr Baker had
been offered GBP 7,726.5 and Mr Graham had been offered GBP 6,748.67
and they had accepted payment. The representatives were sent a letter
on 13 October 2006 requesting confirmation that no aspects of
the applicants’ claims were ongoing and informing them that the
Court would consider striking out each case from its list in its
entirety. By a letter of 9 November 2006 the representatives
confirmed that there were no outstanding claims and that the
proceedings could be concluded.
- 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 applications should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Decides to
disjoin the
applications from the others to which they were joined.
- Decides to strike the applications out of the
list;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 February 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
