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!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF HERBERT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 62868/00)
JUDGMENT
(Striking
out)
STRASBOURG
22
January 2008
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Herbert v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Kristaq
Traja,
Stanislav
Pavlovschi,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 62868/00) against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr George
William Herbert (“the applicant”) on 5 September 2000.
- The
applicant was represented before the Court by Heswall Citizens Advice
Bureau. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office.
- The
applicant complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because he was a man, he was denied
social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.
- By
a partial decision of 10 October 2001 the Court decided to
communicate the complaints concerning widows' benefits and declared
the remainder of the application inadmissible. By a decision of 8
April 2003 the Court declared the complaint regarding Widowed
Mother's Allowance admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Preston.
- His
wife died on 11 November 1999, leaving two children born in 1992 and
1995. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 22 June 2000 and was
rejected on 28 June 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.
II. 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.
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.
- On
5 October 2005 the applicant's legal representative notified the
Court that, as regards WMA, a friendly settlement had been reached
between the parties as Mr Herbert had been offered GBP 11,368.14 and
he had accepted payment. On 23 March 2006 the applicant's
representatives were sent a letter by the Registry enquiring whether
the applicant wished to continue his application with regard to
Widow's Pension (WP). On 6 July 2007 the applicant's representative
informed the Court that the applicant no longer wished to proceed
with the latter complaint.
- The Court takes note of the friendly settlement
reached between the parties in respect of the claim for WMA (Article
39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based
on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its
Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and
Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). It further notes that the
applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, within the meaning
of Article 37 § 1 (a), in respect of his claim for WP. In
accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention,
the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human
rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols which require
the continuation of the examination of this claim.
- Accordingly,
the remainder of the application should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the remainder
of the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Josep
Casadevall
Registrar President
