FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Applications nos. 67913/01, 71428/01 and 682/02
by Anthony Richard RAPLEY and Others
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
	Mr	J. Casadevall, President,
	Sir	Nicolas Bratza,
	Mr	G. Bonello,
	Mr	K. Traja,
	Mr	S. Pavlovschi,
	Mr	J. Šikuta,
	Mrs	P. Hirvelä, judges,
	Mr	L. Garlicki,
	Ms	L. Mijović, substitute judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged respectively on 28 March 2001, 3 July 2001 and 24 October 2001,
Having regard to the partial decision of 10 September 2002, inter alia, to join these applications to other applications (nos. 58372/00, 61878/00, 63477/00, 63480/00, 63647/00, 63961/00, 64986/01, 64996/01, 65202/01, 65478/01, 65507/01, 65741/01, 65906/01, 66181/01, 67100/01, 68173/01, 68175/01, 68264/01, 68298/01, 68499/01, 69076/01, 69323/01, 69327/01, 69491/01, 70521/01, 70741/01, 71176/01, 71429/01, 71570/01, 71758/01, 72656/01, 73646/01, 73653/01, 73978/01, 74961/01, 75092/01, 75126/01, 75993/01, 75995/01, 77129/01, 77424/01, 2573/02, 4810/02, 10747/02, 13944/02, 14404/02 and 14537/02),
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of part of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Anthony Richard Rapley, Mr John Stephen Lyon and Mr Bruce Bradley are British nationals who were born in 1958, 1963, and 1954 and live respectively in Surrey, North Somerset and Buckinghamshire. They were represented before the Court by Ms J. Starling, a lawyer practising in London. 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 applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1.  Mr Rapley
The applicant’s wife died on 31 May 2000, leaving two children born in 1987 and 1990. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 6 September 2000 and was rejected on 28 September 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant lodged an appeal on 6 October 2000, which was decided and rejected on 21 December 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.
2.  Mr Lyon
The applicant’s wife died on 20 February 1998, leaving two children born in 1994 and 1997. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 10 December 2000 and was rejected on 3 January 2001 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.
3.  Mr Bradley
The applicant’s wife died on 3 September 1995, leaving one child born in 1992. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 5 April 2001 and was rejected on 26 April 2001 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.
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 applicants complain that British social security legislation discriminated against them 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 letters of 19, 30 and 26 January 2007 respectively the applicants’ representative notified the Court that Mr Rapley had been offered GBP 6,134.48, that Mr Lyon had been offered GBP 5,681,41 and that Mr Bradley had been offered GBP 2,927.93 in respect of their claims for WPt and/or WMA and that they had accepted payment. By letters of 8, 7 and 9 March 2007 respectively the applicants’ representative requested the Court to strike out the applications in respect of these claims and to adjourn their claims for Widow’s Pension. On 16 March 2007 the applicants’ representative was sent a letter by the Registry stating that the Court would consider striking the case of its list in respect of the claims which have been settled, while the claims in respect of Widow’s Pension would be adjourned until the Court’s lead judgment on that issue, Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom (nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99), delivered on 10 May 2007, had become final (see below). On 3 August 2007 the applicants’ representative was sent another letter by the Registry stating that the latter judgment had become final on 25 July 2007 following the parties’ notification that neither side intended to seek referral of the case to the Grand Chamber (Article 44 § 2 (a) of the Convention).
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of WPt and 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).
Mr Rapley’s children are now 20 and 17 years of age and it is possible that a woman in his position would have ceased to be entitled to WMA and become entitled to a Widow’s Pension (“WP”). Mr Lyon’s and Mr Bradley’s claims are currently still hypothetical.
In its lead judgment regarding WP the Court held that at its origin, and until its abolition in respect of women whose spouses died after 9 April 2001, WP was intended to correct “factual inequalities” between older widows, as a group, and the rest of the population and that this difference in treatment was reasonably and objectively justified. Moreover, the Court considered that the United Kingdom could not be criticised for not having abolished WP earlier and that it was not unreasonable of the legislature to decide to introduce the reform slowly (see Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007). The Court, consequently, did not find a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the non-payment to the applicants of Widow’s Pension or equivalent (ibid § 42).
Consequently, in respect of all three applicants this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
In conclusion, therefore, the Court strikes out of its list the applicants’ complaints as regards Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance and declares inadmissible the applicants’ complaints as regards Widow’s Pension.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to disjoin the applications;
Decides to strike out of its list of cases the complaints about non‑entitlement to a Widow’s Payment and/or Widowed Mother’s Allowance;
Decides to declare inadmissible the applicants’ complaints about non‑entitlement to a Widow’s Pension.
	Fatoş Aracı	Josep Casadevall
	Deputy Registrar	President