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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> MCERLANE & Ors v United Kingdom - 67777/01 [2007] ECHR 433 (3 May 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/433.html Cite as: [2007] ECHR 433 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos.
67777/01, 68429/01, 68430/01
by William MCERLANE and
Others
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 May 2007 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 regard to the above applications lodged on 23 January 2001 and 6 April 2001,
Having regard to the partial decisions of 8 October 2002 and 15 October 2002,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr William McErlane, Mr David McKnight and Mr Declan Quinn are British nationals who respectively were born in 1959, 1953 and 1957 and live in County Antrim, Belfast and Dungannon. They 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.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Mr McErlane
The applicant’s wife died on 19 February 1999, leaving him with three children born in 1985, 1988 and 1990. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 8 October 2000 and was rejected on 28 November 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.
2. Mr McKnight
The applicant’s wife died on 22 September 2000, leaving him with two children born in 1982 and 1984. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 8 December 2000 and was rejected on 3 January 2001 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.
3. Mr Quinn
The applicant’s wife died on 17 October 2000, leaving him with four children born in 1981, 1983, 1984 and 1989. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 22 November 2000 and was rejected on 5 December 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.
B. Relevant domestic law
The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 14-26, ECHR 2002-IV
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that British social security legislation discriminated against them on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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 McErlane had been offered GBP 4,337.66, Mr McKnight had been offered GBP 6,914.08 and Mr Quinn had been offered GBP 4,377.09 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 friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President