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 MCELROY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Applications
nos. 57646/00, 57946/00 and 60937/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
22 May
2007
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of McElroy 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 3 May 2007
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in three applications (nos. 57646/00, 57946/00 and
60937/00) 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 Oliver McElroy, Mr Gerard Rogan and Mr Louis
O'Hare (“the applicants”), on 12 May 2000, in the case of
the first two applicants and on 31 August 2000 in the case of the
third applicant.
- The
applicants were represented before the Court by Mr L. Allamby, a
lawyer practising in Belfast. 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 decisions of, respectively, 19 February 2002, 18 August 2001
and 4 December 2001, the Court decided to communicate these
applications, and in the latter decision, in respect of application
no. 60937/00 to join it to other applications (nos. 60525/00,
60933/00, 60944/00, 61038/00, 61388/00, 61949/00, 62776/00, 63388/00,
63464/00, 63469/00, 63470/00, 63473/00, 63474/00, 63584/00, 63645/00,
63701/00, 63702/00, 64735/01 and 65723/01).
- On
19 February 2002, 18 September 2001 and 4 December 2001,
respectively, after obtaining the parties' observations, the Court
declared these applications admissible in so far as they concerned
discrimination suffered by the applicants in connection with their
claims for widows' benefits and declared the remainder of each
application inadmissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Mr McElroy
- The
applicant was born in 1959 and lives in County Down.
- His
wife died on 16 November 1998, leaving him with three children born
in 1993, 1995 and 1998. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 22
December 1998 and was rejected on 23 February 1999 on the ground that
he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman.
The applicant lodged an appeal on 1 April 1999, which was heard and
dismissed by the Social Security Tribunal on 20 April 2000.
B. Mr Rogan
- The
applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Northern Ireland.
- His
wife died on 11 June 1996, leaving him with three children born in
1989, 1994 and 1996. His claim for widows' benefits was made on
23 May 1997 and was rejected on 30 November 1998 on the ground
that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a
woman. The applicant lodged an appeal on 30 November 1998, which was
heard and dismissed by the Social Security Tribunal on 20 April 2000.
C. Mr O'Hare
- The
applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Belfast.
- His
wife died on 10 February 2000, leaving him with two children born in
1991 and 1998. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 10 February
2000 and was rejected on 14 April 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 such social security benefits
were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's
judgment in the case of 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.
- By
a letter of 18 January 2007 the applicants' representative notified
the Court that Mr McElroy had been offered GBP 5,322.88, Mr Rogan had
been offered GBP 7,429.61 and Mr O'Hare had been offered GBP 1,191.44
and that they had accepted payment. On 19 January 2007 the
representative was sent a letter by the Registry stating that if no
reply was received to the contrary by 2 February 2007, the Court
might consider striking out the applications from its list in their
entirety. The representative has not sent a letter objecting to the
striking out of the applications.
- 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
disjoin
application no. 60937/00 from the others to which it was joined;
- Decides to strike the applications out of its
list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 May 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
