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 >> Thomas CARROLL v the United Kingdom - 27969/02 [2008] ECHR 309 (18 March 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/309.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 309 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
27969/02
by Thomas CARROLL
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 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 1 March 2001,
Having regard to the partial decision of 12 November 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Thomas Carroll, is a British national who was born in 1942 and lives in Skelmersdale. 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 16 July 1990. On 19 September 2000, the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits. On 21 September 2000, the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman. On 2 October 2000 the applicant made a request for reconsideration. On 4 October 2000 his claim was reconsidered but the decision remained unchanged. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed. On 28 November 2000 the appeal tribunal confirmed the previous decision.
The applicant did not appeal further 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