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 MCCRORY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 62775/00)
JUDGMENT
(Striking
out)
STRASBOURG
20
November 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of McCrory 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 L. Garlicki,
Mrs P. Hirvelä,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 62775/00) 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 Hugh
McCrory (“the applicant”) on 10 November 2000.
- The
applicant was represented 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 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.
- By
a partial decision of 10 October 2001 the Court decided to
communicate this application. On 8 April 2003, after obtaining the
parties' observations, the Court declared this application admissible
in so far as the complaint concerned Widowed Mother's Allowance and
declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Dungannon, Northern Ireland.
- His
wife died in 1991, leaving six children born in 1976, 1978, 1980,
1983, 1985 and 1990 respectively. His claim for widows' benefits was
made on 12 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 did not appeal further as he considered or was
advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no 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
- Article
37 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings
decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the
circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his
application; ...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the
application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention
and the protocols thereto so requires.”
- On
11 December 2006 Mr McCrory's legal representative notified the
Registry that Mr McCrory's application should be withdrawn. On
18 December 2006 the Registry of the Court sent the legal
representative a letter requesting him to submit the reasons for such
withdrawal by 15 January 2007 in order to allow the Court to
consider whether to strike the application out of its list of cases.
The Court later agreed to extend the deadline to 22 January 2007. Mr
McCrory's legal representative subsequently informed the Court that
the applicant wished to withdraw on the basis of a mathematical
calculation he had done in respect of the financial implications of
his complaint.
- In
the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of
the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not
intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court finds no
special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined
in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continuation of
the examination of the application.
- Accordingly,
the remainder of the application should be struck out of the Court's
list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its
list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
