FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 65906/01
by Anthony C. BENFIELD
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 September 2000,
Having regard to the partial decision of 10 September 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Anthony Benfield, is a British national who was born in 1956 and lives in Colchester. He was initially represented before the Court by Mr A. Burstow, a solicitor practising in West Sussex. 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 parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant's wife died on 16 December 1996 leaving two children born in 1985 and 1987. On 13 December 2000 the applicant applied for widows' benefits for the second time. On 5 January 2001 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed because 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 social security benefit was payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
The applicant was in receipt of child benefit at the time of his claim.
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 and Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that British social security legislation discriminated against him 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
On 19 March 2008 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant's representative a letter requesting the applicant to forward his proposals for a friendly settlement of the application by 9 April 2008. The applicant's representative did not reply. On 4 June 2008 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant's representative another letter by registered mail stating that unless he submitted the required information by 18 June 2008, the Court would consider striking out the application from the list for lack of interest. The applicant's legal representative has not contacted the Court since. On 12 June 2008 the Government informed the Registry of the Court that it appeared that the applicant had changed solicitors. On 23 June 2008 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant a letter by registered mail, requesting him to inform the Court by 14 July 2008 whether he wished to maintain his application and, if so, whether he had changed legal representatives. He was further warned that failure to reply by the said deadline may lead the Court to consider striking out his application from its list of cases. The applicant has not contacted the Registry of the Court ever 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.
In of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the remainder of the application out of the list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.
	Lawrence Early	Lech Garlicki
	Registrar	President