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 >> Michael Alan MONAGHAN v the United Kingdom - 12959/02 [2008] ECHR 275 (11 March 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/275.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 275 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
12959/02
by Michael Alan MONAGHAN
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech
Garlicki,
President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Stanislav
Pavlovschi,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David
Thór Björgvinsson
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 March 2001,
Having regard to the partial decision of 30 April 2002 to communicate this application and to join it to other applications (nos.12937/02, 12955/02, 13266/02),
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Michael Alan Monaghan, is a British national who was born in 1961 and lives in Surrey. He was represented before the Court by Royds RDW, Solicitors, London. 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.
The applicant’s wife died on 23 January 2000, leaving two children born in 1993 and 1995. His second claim for widows’ benefits was made on 12 September 2000 and was rejected on 19 September 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 applicant complained that British social security legislation discriminated against him 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 28 December 2007 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that Mr Monaghan had been offered GBP 8,711.43 in respect of his claim for WMA and related costs and that he had accepted the offer. On 4 February 2008 the applicant’s representative was sent a letter by the Registry stating that the Court would consider striking the case out of its list. The applicant’s representative has not informed the Registry of any objection.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of WPt and WMA. 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).
Accordingly, the remainder of the application should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to disjoin the application from the others to which it was joined;
Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence Early Lech
Garlicki
Registrar President