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 >> M.E. MACRITCHIE v the United Kingdom - 19298/08 [2010] ECHR 1911 (2 November 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1911.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1911 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
19298/08
by M.E. MACRITCHIE
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 November 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech
Garlicki,
President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Ledi
Bianku,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Vincent
Anthony de Gaetano,
judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 February 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms M.E. Macritchie, is a British national who was born in London and lives in Gosport.
2. She is represented before the Court by M. Demetriou of Brick Court Chambers, a barrister practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr M. Kuzmicki of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
4. The applicant’s ex-husband served in the Royal Navy for twenty two years between 1953 and 1976. During this time he was involved in the re fitting of ships and was exposed to asbestos. He died on 21 September 2006. The cause of death was recorded on his death certificate as malignant mesothelioma.
5. Although the applicant was not lawfully married to the deceased at the time of his death, she states that they had re-united following the divorce and, although they had never re-married, they had been together for a total of forty seven years and she was financially dependent on him.
6. The applicant instructed solicitors to bring a claim against the Government in respect of her late husband’s death on the grounds that his death had been caused by exposure to asbestos on board Royal Navy ships. However, she was informed by her solicitors that the Government had immunity in respect of her proposed claim. In a letter dated 12 December 2007, her solicitors stated that “servicemen are unable to claim for asbestos related disease prior to 1987... the law was made for public policy reasons and... there is little you or I can do to change the situation”.
7. The applicant also sought to claim a War Widows pension. However, on 7 February 2008, her claim was rejected on the grounds that she was not legally married to her late husband at the time of his death.
COMPLAINTS
8. The applicant complained that her ex-husband’s death was caused by the acts or omissions of the Government and that she cannot claim compensation in respect of his death. Although she did not identify any specific Convention articles in her application, the essence of her complaint raised issues under Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
9. By letter dated 24 August 2010 the Government informed the applicant that the circumstances of her case had been considered by the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency of the Ministry of Defence and that she was successful in qualifying for an attributable pension from the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. It was accepted that the applicant’s ex-husband’s death was attributable to his service in the Royal Navy and, although the applicant’s eligibility was assessed on the basis that she was an unmarried partner at the time of death, the benefits that she was eligible for were the same as those she would have been entitled to had she been assessed as a wife.
10. By letter dated 8 September 2010 the applicant informed the Court that she no longer wished to pursue her application.
11. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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.
12. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President
