FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Applications no. 67095/01, 72666/01 and 78044/01
by David P. LONGBOTTOM and Others
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ. Casadevall, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged respectively on 28 February 2001, 1 August 2001 and 5 December 2001,
Having regard to the partial decisions of 8 October 2002 and 15 October 2002,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of part of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr David P. Longbottom, Mr Ian Campbell and Mr Peter Davey are British nationals who were born in 1961, 1960 and 1952 and live respectively in West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire and Dorset. They were 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.
1. Mr Longbottom
The applicant’s wife died on 20 August 1995, leaving two children born in 1987 and 1990. His claim for widows’ benefits was made in or about January 1999 and was rejected on 21 January 1999 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant applied again on 15 February 1999 and his claim was rejected on 23 March 1999 for the same reason. The applicant lodged an appeal on 12 April 1999. The Benefits Agency’s reconsideration decision of 20 June 2000 upheld the earlier decision and his appeal was further heard and adjourned by a tribunal on 30 August 2000. 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 benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
2. Mr Campbell
The applicant’s wife died on 21 November 1994, leaving a child born in 1990. Following a telephone call and a letter to the Benefits Agency, his claim for widows’ benefits was made on 31 January 2001 and was rejected on 1 February 2001 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant lodged an appeal on 14 February 2001. The Benefits Agency’s reconsideration decision of 15 February 2001 upheld the earlier decision and his appeal was further heard and adjourned by a tribunal on 22 August 2001. 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 benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
3. Mr Davey
The applicant’s wife died on 11 August 2000, leaving two children born in 1988 and 1991. Following a telephone call and a letter to the Benefits Agency, his claim for widows’ benefits was made on 11 October 2000 and was rejected on 15 November 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant lodged an appeal. The Benefits Agency reconsideration decision of 5 February 2001 upheld the earlier decision and his appeal was further heard and rejected by a tribunal on 11 June 2001. 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 benefits 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.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that British social security legislation discriminated against them 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 letters of 30 and 29 January 2007 the applicants’ representative notified the Court that Mr Longbottom had been offered GBP 13,863.22, that Mr Campbell had been offered GBP 5,703.75 and that Mr Davey had been offered GBP 9,078.03 in respect of their claims for WPt and/or WMA and that they had accepted payment. By letters of 5 March 2007 the applicants’ representative requested the Court to strike out the applications in respect of these claims and to adjourn their claims for Widow’s Pension. On 9 March 2007 the applicants’ 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 which had been settled, while the claims in respect of Widow’s Pension (“WP”) would be adjourned until the Court’s lead judgment on that issue, Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom (nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99), delivered on 10 May 2007, had become final (see below). On 3 August 2007 the applicants’ representative was sent another letter by the Registry stating that the latter judgment had become final on 25 July 2007 following the parties’ notification that neither side intended to seek referral of the case to the Grand Chamber (Article 44 § 2 (a) of the Convention).
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of WPt and WMA. 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).
Mr Longbottom’s children are now 20 and 17 years of age, Mr Campbell’s child is 17 years of age and Mr Davey’s children are 19 and 16 years of age, and therefore it is possible that a woman in the applicants’ position would have ceased to be entitled to WMA and become entitled to a Widow’s Pension.
In its lead judgment regarding WP the Court held that at its origin, and until its abolition in respect of women whose spouses died after 9 April 2001, WP was intended to correct “factual inequalities” between older widows, as a group, and the rest of the population and that this difference in treatment was reasonably and objectively justified. Moreover, the Court considered that the United Kingdom could not be criticised for not having abolished WP earlier and that it was not unreasonable of the legislature to decide to introduce the reform slowly (see Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007). The Court, consequently, did not find a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the non-payment to the applicants of Widow’s Pension or equivalent (ibid § 42).
Consequently, in respect of all three applicants this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
In conclusion, therefore, the Court strikes out of its list the applicants’ complaints as regards Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance and declares inadmissible the applicants’ complaints as regards Widow’s Pension.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike out of its list of cases the complaints about non‑entitlement to a Widow’s Payment and/or Widowed Mother’s Allowance;
Decides to declare inadmissible the applicants’ complaints about non‑entitlement to a Widow’s Pension.
Fatoş AracıJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy