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 DAVIS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Applications
nos. 60946/00, 60978/00, 61399/00 and 61408/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
6
February 2007
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Davis 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 four applications (nos. 60946/00, 60978/00,
61399/00 and 61408/00) 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 Paul Davis, Mr Kevin P
Hutton, Mr Dennis Thomas and Mr Grahame D Rourke, respectively on 25
August 2000, 10 June 2000 respectively and 15 September 2000 in the
case of the last two applicants.
- 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.
4 By
partial decision of 10 October 2001 the Court decided to communicate
these applications. On 8 April 2003, after obtaining the parties’
observations, the Court declared these applications admissible in so
far as the complaints concerned Widowed Mother’s Allowance and
declared the remainder of each application inadmissible.
THE FACTS
A. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Mr Davis
- Mr
Davis was born in 1953 and lives in North Somerset.
- His
wife died on 18 September 1998. His claim for widows’ benefits
was made on 16 May 2000 and was rejected on 19 May 2000 on the ground
that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not
a woman. A formal decision was made by the Benefits Agency on 7
August 2000. 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. Mr Hutton
- The
applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Berkshire.
- His
wife died on 7 July 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was
made on 12 January 2000 and was rejected later in January 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 Thomas
- The
applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Somerset.
- His
wife died on 14 January 1991. His claim for widows’ benefits
was made on 12 May 2000 and was rejected on 13 June 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.
D. Mr Rourke
- The
applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Herefordshire.
- His
wife died on 4 August 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was
made in mid-April 2000 and was rejected on 1 June 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 Davis had been offered GBP 9,383.79, Mr Hutton had been
offered GBP 12,017.6, Mr Thomas had been offered GBP 6,759.66 and Mr
Rourke had been offered GBP 4,180.22 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 now 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
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
