FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 43390/02
by Bruce BRADLEY
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 28 November 2002,
Having regard to the partial decision of 6 May 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Bruce Bradley, is a British national who was born in 1954 and lives in Buckingham. He was represented before the Court by TV Edwards, 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 3 September 1995.
On 26 January 2002 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance (“WBA”) to the Inland Revenue. On 29 May 2002 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. 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 relevant domestic law and practice are described in the Court’s judgment in the case of Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 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
By a letter of 27 June 2007 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that Mr Bradley had been offered 400 euros in respect of the costs of his claim for WBA and that he had accepted the offer. On 9 July 2007 the applicant’s representatives were informed that the Court would consider striking the application out of the list of cases following the friendly settlement reached.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of 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