FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27958/02
by Jose BLACH
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 November 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 1 March 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jose Blach, is a British national who was born in 1969 and lives in London. 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 21 October 1998. In October 2000 the applicant applied for widows’ benefits. On 11 October 2000 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed. 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 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 12 August 2008 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant’s representative a letter requesting the applicant to confirm that he had agreed to the Government’s offer of settlement. The applicant’s representative did not reply. On 26 September 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 10 October 2008, the Court would consider striking out the application from the list for lack of interest. The applicant’s representative has not contacted the Court since on the matter.
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 application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyLech Garlicki
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy