Henry HORNER v the United Kingdom - 28009/02 [2008] ECHR 278 (11 March 2008)


    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!



    BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

    European Court of Human Rights


    You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Henry HORNER v the United Kingdom - 28009/02 [2008] ECHR 278 (11 March 2008)
    URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/278.html
    Cite as: [2008] ECHR 278

    [New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]



    FOURTH SECTION

    FINAL DECISION

    AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

    Application no. 28009/02
    by Henry HORNER
    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,
    Giovanni Bonello,
    Stanislav Pavlovschi,
    Ljiljana Mijović,
    David Thór Björgvinsson,
    Ledi Bianku, judges,

    and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

    Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 May 2001,

    Having regard to the partial decision of 12 November 2002,

    Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

    Having deliberated, decides as follows:






    THE FACTS

    The applicant, Mr Henry Horner, is a British national who was born in 1937 and lives in Argyll. He was represented before the Court by Royds Rdw, solicitors in 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 6 August 1992. On 6 December 2000 the applicant applied for widows’ benefits. On 8 January 2001 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as 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 benefit was payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.

    B.  Relevant domestic law

    The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007.

    COMPLAINT

    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

    The applicant has provided no evidence of having children/being in receipt of child benefit, and has made no express claim for Widowed Mother’s Allowance.

    Regarding Widow’s Pension (“WP”), the Court held in its lead judgment that at its origin, and until its abolition in respect of women whose spouses died after 9 April 2001, WP was intended to correct “factual inequalities” between older widows, as a group, and the rest of the population and that this difference in treatment was reasonably and objectively justified. Moreover, the Court considered that the United Kingdom could not be criticised for not having abolished WP earlier and that it was not unreasonable of the legislature to decide to introduce the reform slowly (see Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007). The Court, consequently, considering it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint in respect of Article 8, did not find a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the non-payment to the applicants of Widow’s Pension or equivalent (ibid § 42).

    Consequently, the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

    For these reasons, the Court unanimously

    Decides to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application.

    Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
    Registrar President




BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/278.html