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 CREW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 61928/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
9 January
2007
This judgment is
final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Crew 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 8 April 2003 and on 5 December 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- . The
case originated in an application (no. 61928/00) 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 Ian
Martin Crew on 25 September 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
8 April 2003, after obtaining the parties’ observations, the
Court declared the applications admissible in so far as this
complaint concerned Widowed Mother’s Allowance. A further
complaint concerning future pension claims was declared inadmissible
on the same date.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Hyde.
- His wife died on 2 October 1998.
His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 18 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. The applicant
appealed on 7 June 2000 and received a reply on 19 September 2000
rejecting his claim. 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 Crew had been offered GBP
5,817.53 and had accepted payment on 7 September 2005. Mr Crew 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
- 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
