[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF HAGGAN AND MCCAVERY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Applications
nos. 63176/00 and 64984/01)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
22 May
2007
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Haggan and McCavery v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting 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,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in
private on 3 May 2007
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in two applications (nos. 63176/00 and 64984/01)
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 Irwin Haggan and Mr Ivan McCavery (“the
applicants”), respectively on 9 November 2000 and 15 January
2001.
- The
applicants were represented before the Court by Mr. L Allamby, a
lawyer practising in Belfast. The United Kingdom Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley
of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
-
The applicants complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because they were men, they
were denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by
widows.
- By a partial decision of 10 October 2001 the Court
decided to communicate these applications in so far as they related
to the claims for Widowed Mother's Allowance and declared the
remainder of each application inadmissible.
- On
8 April 2003, after obtaining the parties' observations, the Court
declared these applications admissible in so far as the complaints
concerned Widowed Mother's Allowance.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Mr Haggan
- The
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Belfast.
- His
wife died on 28 August 1999, leaving him with two children born in
1984 and 1987. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 6 August
2000 and was rejected on 13 August 2000 on the ground that he was not
entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The
applicant appealed on 29 August 2000 but he later withdrew his 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. Mr McCavery
- The
applicant was born in 1955 and lives in County Down.
- His
wife died on 28 August 1999, leaving him with two children born in
1989 and 1991. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 1 September
2000 and was rejected on 10 September 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 AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's
judgment in the case of 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.
- By
a letter of 18 January 2007 the applicants' representative notified
the Court that Mr Haggan had been offered GBP 3,492.74 and Mr
McCavery had been offered GBP 4,105.18 and that they had accepted
payment. On 19 January 2007 the representative was sent a letter by
the Registry stating that if no reply was received to the contrary by
2 February 2007, the Court might consider striking out the
applications from its list in their entirety. The representative has
not sent a letter objecting to the striking out of the applications.
- The
Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties
(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).
- Accordingly,
the applications should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 May 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
