FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF HAGGAN AND MCCAVERY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Applications nos. 63176/00 and 64984/01)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly settlement)
STRASBOURG
22 May 2007
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Haggan and McCavery v. the United Kingdom,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ. Casadevall, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 May 2007
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 63176/00 and 64984/01) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Irwin Haggan and Mr Ivan McCavery (“the applicants”), respectively on 9 November 2000 and 15 January 2001.
2. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr. L Allamby, a lawyer practising in Belfast. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
3. The applicants complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because they were men, they were denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.
4. By a partial decision of 10 October 2001 the Court decided to communicate these applications in so far as they related to the claims for Widowed Mother's Allowance and declared the remainder of each application inadmissible.
5. On 8 April 2003, after obtaining the parties' observations, the Court declared these applications admissible in so far as the complaints concerned Widowed Mother's Allowance.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A.Mr Haggan
6. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Belfast.
7. His wife died on 28 August 1999, leaving him with two children born in 1984 and 1987. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 6 August 2000 and was rejected on 13 August 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant appealed on 29 August 2000 but he later withdrew his appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
B.Mr McCavery
8. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in County Down.
9. His wife died on 28 August 1999, leaving him with two children born in 1989 and 1991. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 1 September 2000 and was rejected on 10 September 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because 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 were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
10. The relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's judgment in the case of Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 14‑26, ECHR 2002-IV.
THE LAW
11. 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.
12. By a letter of 18 January 2007 the applicants' representative notified the Court that Mr Haggan had been offered GBP 3,492.74 and Mr McCavery had been offered GBP 4,105.18 and that they had accepted payment. On 19 January 2007 the representative was sent a letter by the Registry stating that if no reply was received to the contrary by 2 February 2007, the Court might consider striking out the applications from its list in their entirety. The representative has not sent a letter objecting to the striking out of the applications.
13. The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
14. Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 May 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. EarlyJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy