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 NORBURY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 67120/01)
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 Norbury 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. 67120/01) 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
Clifford Norbury (“the applicant”), on 16 October 2000.
- The
applicant was represented by Cook and Partners, Chartered Accountants
in Hertford. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office.
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to
grant him Widow's Bereavement Allowance or equivalent constituted
discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the
Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- By
a partial decision of 12 March 2002 the Court decided to communicate
this application and join it to others (application nos. 66293/01 and
68056/01). By a decision of 4 November 2003, after obtaining the
parties' observations the Court declared the remainder of the
application admissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Brickondbury.
- His
wife died on 6 April 1997. On 12 September 2000 the applicant made a
claim to the Inland Revenue requesting an allowance equivalent to
that received by a widow, namely Widow's Bereavement Allowance
(“WBA”). On 26 September 2000 the Inland Revenue informed
him that he was ineligible for WBA as 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 such allowance was
granted to widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's
judgment in the case of Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00 (BAILII: [2006] ECHR 976 ],
63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007.
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
10 April 2007 the Registry requested the applicant's representatives
to confirm by 16 May 2007 whether a friendly settlement had been
reached in Mr Norbury's case following the decision in Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom (cited above) and
if not to submit claims under Article 41 of the Convention. The
applicant's representatives did not reply, and they did not request
an extension of time. By letter dated 28 June 2007, sent by
registered post, the applicant's representatives were notified that
the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had
expired on 16 May 2007 and that no extension of time had been
requested. Attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the
Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of
its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The
applicant's representatives received this letter on 5 July 2007.
However, no response has been received.
- 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 list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Decides to disjoin this application from the
applications to which it was joined;
2. 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
