FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 75126/01
by Ian Mackenzie PAYNE
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ. Casadevall, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 September 2001,
Having regard to the partial decision of 10 September 2002, to communicate this application and to join it to other applications (nos. 58372/00, 61878/00, 63477/00, 63480/00, 63647/00, 63961/00, 64986/01, 64996/01, 65202/01, 65478/01, 65507/01, 65741/01, 65906/01, 66181/01, 67100/01, 67913/01, 68173/01, 68175/01, 68264/01, 68298/01, 68449/01, 69076/01, 69323/01, 69327/01, 69491/01, 70521/01, 70741/01, 71176/01, 71428/01, 71429/01, 71570/01, 71758/01, 72656/01, 73646/01, 73653/01, 73978/01, 74961/01, 75092/01, 75993/01, 75995/01, 77129/01, 77424/01, 682/02, 2573/02, 4810/02, 10747/02, 13944/02, 14404/02 and 14537/02),
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of part of the case,
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 Ian Mackenzie Payne, is a British national who was born in 1961 and lives in Shrewsbury. He was represented before the Court by Ms Jacky 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 6 September 1996, leaving two children born in 1990 and 1992. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 16 March 2001 and was rejected on 20 March 2001 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. On 28 March 2001 the applicant appealed this decision. On 25 April 2001 the appeal was heard and dismissed.
On 25 January 2002 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 March 2002 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 29 January 2007 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that Mr Payne had been offered GBP 3,310.02 in respect of his claims for WPt and/or WMA and that he had accepted payment. On 13 February 2007 and 16 March 2007 the applicant’s representative was sent letters 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 judgments in Hobbs (cited above) and the claim in respect of Widow’s Pension 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 applicant’s 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). On 13 August 2007 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that a settlement had also been reached in respect of the claim for WBA.
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).
Mr Payne’s children are 15 and 17 years of age. Thus, his claim in respect of Widow’s Pension (“WP”) is currently still hypothetical.
However, even if this were not so, the Court held in its lead judgment regarding WP 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, 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 applicant’s complaints as regards Widow’s Payment and/or Widowed Mother’s Allowance and Widow’s Bereavement Allowance and declares inadmissible the applicant’s complaint as regards Widow’s Pension.
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to disjoin the application from the others to which it was joined;
Decides to strike out of its list of cases the applicant’s complaints about non-entitlement to a Widow’s Payment and/or Widowed Mother’s Allowance and Widow’s Bereavement Allowance;
Decides to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application.
T. L. EarlyJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy