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 RATHFELDER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 63507/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
9 January
2007
This judgment is
final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rathfelder 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 Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 May 2003 and on 5 December 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 63507/00) 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 Martin
Rathfelder on 21 June 2000.
- The
applicant 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 and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because he was a man, he was denied
social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.
- On
6 May 2003, after obtaining the parties’ observations, the
Court declared the applications admissible in so far as this
complaint concerned Widowed Mother’s Allowance and declared
inadmissible a further complaint concerning future pension claims. It
also decided to join this application to other applications
(applications nos. 5837/00, 60274/00, 60940/00, 61019/00, 61394/00,
61398/00, 61781/00, 62966/00, 63471/00, 63476/00, 63478/00, and
63481/00).
THE FACTS
- The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Manchester.
- His wife died on 28 December 1992. His claim for
widows’ benefits was made on 26 April 2000 and was rejected on
8 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’
benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal
further as he was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail
since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United
Kingdom law.
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.
- In
October 2005 the respondent Government sent a table setting out the
list of applicants who had been proposed a settlement of their
claims, including the present applicant.
- The
Government notified the Court that Mr Rathfelder had been offered GBP
23,433.88 and had accepted payment on 26 September 2005. Mr
Rathfelder was sent a letter on 23 March 2006 and asked whether he
was content that his case be struck off the Court’s case list.
He was warned that, if he did not contact the Court by 13 April 2006,
his case would be struck off. The applicant did not reply.
- 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 case should be struck out of the
list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Decides to disjoin this application from the applications
to which it was joined;
- Decides to strike the case out of the list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 January 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Josep Casadevall
Deputy
Registrar President
