[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Barry STEVENSON v the United Kingdom - 63961/00 [2008] ECHR 448 (29 April 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/448.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 448

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

FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 63961/00
by Barry STEVENSON
against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 December 2000,

Having regard to the partial decision of 10 September 2002,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Barry Stevenson, is a British national who was born in 1943 and lives in Leicester. He was represented before the Court by Mr Andy Platt, a lawyer practising in Leicester. 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 31 December 1999, leaving two children born in 1984 and 1991. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 8 May 2000 and was rejected on 11 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. On 12 May 2000 the applicant appealed. The applicant’s appeal was heard by an appeal tribunal and dismissed on 17 October 2000. 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 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 2 January 2008 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that Mr Stevenson had reached a friendly settlement agreement. Subsequently, by a letter postmarked 14 February 2008, he informed the Court that Mr Stevenson had been offered GBP 6,837.60 in respect of his claims for WPt and/or WMA and that he had accepted and received the said payment as full and final settlement of his claims. By a letter of 20 March 2008 the Registry informed the applicant’s representative that in view of the settlement reached and the fact that there were no outstanding claims, the Court would consider striking the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of WPt and/or 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).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.

Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
Registrar President