FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 28001/02
by Alastair HARDIE
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 October 2001,
Having regard to the partial decision of 12 November 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 Alastair Hardie, is a British national who was born in 1929 and lives in Edinburgh, Scotland. He was represented before the Court by Royds Rdw, solicitors 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 parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s wife died on 1 December 1998.
On 5 March 2001 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance (“WBA”) to the Inland Revenue for the years 1999-2000. On 9 March 2001 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in United Kingdom law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.
On 4 June 2001 the applicant made a formal application as to the payment of social security survivors’ benefits, with the Benefits Agency and on 13 June 2001 he was informed that he was not entitled to any benefit 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.
B.  Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law and practice are described in the Court’s judgment in the case of , nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, 26 March 2007.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities’ refusal to grant him WBA or equivalent constituted discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
On 11 April 2007 the Registry requested the applicant’s representatives to confirm by 22 May 2007 whether a friendly settlement had been reached in the applicant’s case following the decision in 
By letter dated 26 February 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representatives were notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. Attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Again the applicant’s representatives did not reply.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his 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.
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