FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 66506/01
by Kenneth Thomas ASPINALL
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Stanislav Pavlovschi,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 February 2001,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having regard to the partial decision of 30 April 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Kenneth Thomas Aspinall, is a British national who was born in 1951 and lives in Liverpool. He was represented before the Court by Ms J. Starling, a lawyer practising 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 21 October 1998, leaving two children born in 1980 and 1983. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 28 April 2000 and was rejected on 8 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant complained about this decision and on 12 May 2000 he received a compliments slip and a new claim form. He therefore made another claim for widows’ benefits on 14 May 2000 and it was rejected on 26 May 2000. On 12 June 2000 the applicant appealed this decision. On 22 August 2000 the appeal was heard and dismissed.
Another claim for widows’ benefits was made on 6 October 2000. On 25 October 2000 the applicant was informed that a decision had already been taken on his claim and that the decision of 22 August 2000 had been confirmed. On 24 November 2000 the applicant contested the latter decision. On 12 January 2001 he was informed that the decision had not been reversed.
On 9 July 2001 the applicant made a claim to the Inland Revenue requesting an allowance equivalent to that received by a widow, namely Widow’s Bereavement Allowance (“WBA”). On 13 July 2001 the Inland Revenue informed him that he was ineligible for WBA as 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 or tax allowances were 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 Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that British social security and tax 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
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 26 January 2007 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that Mr Aspinall had been offered GBP 10,464.13 in respect of his claims for WPt and/or WMA and that he had accepted the offer. On 13 February 2007 the applicant’s representative was sent a letter by the Registry stating that the Court would consider striking the case out of its list in respect of the claims that had been settled, while the claim in respect of WBA should be negotiated with the Government in view of the judgment in Hobbs (cited above) and his claim for Widow’s Pension would be dealt with under application no. 26218/04. On 27 June 2007 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that a settlement amounting to EUR 400 had also been reached in respect of the claim for WBA. The above settlements were again confirmed by the applicant’s legal representative’s letter of 13 August 2007. By a letter of 24 August 2007 the applicant’s legal representative was informed that the Court would consider striking these claims out of its list.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of WPt, WMA and WBA. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
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