FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 60944/00
by Ronald ADDIS
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 August 2000,
Having regard to the partial decision of 4 December 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ronald Addis, is a British national who lives in Belfast. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Colton, Citizens Advice Bureau, Belfast. 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 2 March 2000. On 15 May 2000 the applicant applied for widows’ benefits for the second time. On 1 June 2000 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed. 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 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 any claims for a friendly settlement by 9 April 2008. The applicant’s representative did not reply. By a letter of 18 April 2008 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that he no longer acted in these matters on behalf of the applicant. By a letter of 15 May 2008, sent by registered mail, the applicant was informed that since he had not informed the Court that he had withdrawn the representative’s mandate and that he had made no other contact, the Court would consider striking out the application from the list for lack of interest. The applicant has 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 remainder of 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.
Lawrence EarlyLech Garlicki
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy