[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF HADRELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 61038/00)
JUDGMENT
(Striking
out)
STRASBOURG
2
October 2007
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 Hadrell 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 Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar
Having
deliberated in private on 11 September 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 61038/00) 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 Phillip
Hadrell (“the applicant”) on 8 August 2000.
- The
applicant was represented before the Court by Salmons Solicitors,
Staffordshire. 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 4 December 2001 the Court decided to
communicate this application. On 26 August 2003, after obtaining the
parties' observations, the Court declared this application admissible
in so far as the complaint concerned Widow's Payment and Widowed
Mother's Allowance and declared the remainder of the application
inadmissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Stoke on Trent.
- His
wife died on 17 May 1999, leaving two children born in 1986 and 1991.
His claim for widows' benefits was made on 11 June 1999 and was
rejected on 28 June 1999 on the ground that he was not entitled to
widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant wrote to
the Benefits Agency requesting that his claim be submitted to a
decision-maker. On 16 May 2000 the Benefits Agency replied that
there was no legislation providing an equivalent to widows' benefits
for a man and therefore an appeal could not be allowed. The applicant
did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a
remedy would be bound to fail since no 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
- 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
31 August 2005 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant's
representatives a letter requesting them to put forward any claims
for a friendly settlement by 3 October 2005. The applicant's
representatives did not reply. On 12 October 2006 the Registry of the
Court sent another letter requesting the representatives to put
forward any comments by 1 November 2006 and warning them that failure
to do so might lead the Court to strike out the case from its list.
Again the Court received no reply. On 31 January 2007 the Registry of
the Court sent the applicant's representative another letter by
registered mail stating that since they had not made contact, the
Court would consider striking out their application from the list for
lack of interest. The applicant's representatives have not contacted
the Court since.
- In
the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of
the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not
intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, 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 the application.
- Accordingly,
the application should be struck out of the Court's list of cases.
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 2 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Josep Casadevall
Deputy
Registrar President
