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 CELIA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 66293/01)
JUDGMENT
(Striking
out)
STRASBOURG
29 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 Celia 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 8 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 66293/01) 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 Roger
Celia (“the applicant”), on 16 October 2000.
- The
applicant was initially represented by Cook and Partners, Chartered
Accountants in Hertford. At a later date he was self-represented. The
United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office.
-
The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal
to grant him Widow's Bereavement Allowance or equivalent constituted
discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the
Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- By
a partial decision of 12 March 2002 the Court decided to communicate
the application and join it to others (application nos. 67120/01 and
68056/01). By a decision of 4 November 2003, after obtaining the
parties' observations, the Court declared the remainder of the
application admissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Hertford.
- His
wife died on 30 January 1997. On 12 September 2000 the applicant made
a claim to the Inland Revenue requesting an allowance equivalent to
that received by a widow, namely Widow's Bereavement Allowance
(“WBA”). On 26 September 2000 the Inland Revenue informed
him that he was ineligible for WBA as he was not a woman. The
applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that
such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such allowance was
granted to widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. 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.
THE LAW
- Article
37 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings
decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the
circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his
application; ...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the
application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention
and the protocols thereto so requires.”
- On
10 April 2007 the Registry requested the applicant's representatives
to confirm by 16 May 2007 whether a friendly settlement had been
reached in Mr Celia's case following the decision in Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom (cited above) and,
if not, to submit the applicant's claims under Article 41 of the
Convention. The applicant's representatives did not reply, and they
did not request an extension of time. By letter dated 28 June 2007,
sent by registered post, the applicant's representatives were
notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's
observations had expired on 16 May 2007 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. The
applicant's representatives did not reply. On 16 August 2007 the
applicant informed the Court that he was no longer represented. Thus,
on 24 August 2007 the Registry requested the applicant to confirm by
24 September 2007 whether a friendly settlement had been reached and,
if not, to submit his claims under Article 41 of the Convention. The
applicant did not reply. By letter dated 31 October 2007, sent by
registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed
for submission of his observations had expired and that no extension
of time had been requested. Attention was drawn to Article 37 §
1 (a) of the Convention (see above). The applicant did not reply.
- In
these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer
justified to continue the examination of the application within the
meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Furthermore,
the Court finds no reasons which would require it to examine the
application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
- Accordingly,
the remainder of the application should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Decides to disjoin this application from the
applications to which it was joined;
2. Decides to strike the remainder of the
application out of its list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
