[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> William KILLICK v the United Kingdom - 66093/01 [2008] ECHR 493 (13 May 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/493.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 493

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

FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 66093/01
by William KILLICK
against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 October 2000,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the partial decision of 15 October 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 William Killick, is a British national who was born in 1916 and lives in Suffolk. He is represented before the Court by Moore Green, Chartered Accountants, practising in Suffolk. 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 27 September 1996.

On 25 February 2000 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance (“WBA”) to the Inland Revenue for the years 1996-1998. On 16 May 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in United Kingdom law allowing widowers to claim this benefit. 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 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, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities’ refusal to grant him WBA or equivalent constituted discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

THE LAW

On 11 April 2007 the Registry requested the applicant’s representatives to confirm by 22 May 2007 whether a friendly settlement had been reached in the applicant’s case following the decision in Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom (cited above) and if not, to submit his claims under Article 41 of the Convention.

By letter dated 26 February 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representatives were notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired 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.

On 12 March 2008 the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that the applicant wanted to withdraw the application in view of the costs and the amount involved.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the remainder of the application out of the list.

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