FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 77925/01
by Terence PRENDERGAST
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 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 24 October 2001,
Having regard to the partial decision of 15 October 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Terence Pendergast, is a British national who lives in Liverpool. He was represented before the Court by Mr C. Topping, Jackson and Canter Solicitors, Liverpool. 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 January 2001. On 1 March 2001 the applicant applied for widows' benefits. On 1 May 2001 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed. The same decision was confirmed by a letter of 12 July 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 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 3 August 2007 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant's representative a letter requesting the applicant to forward his proposals for a friendly settlement of the application or, alternatively, to submit his claims under Article 41 of the Convention by 3 November 2007. The applicant's representative did not reply. On 18 June 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 2 July 2008, the Court would consider striking out the application from the list for lack of interest. The applicant's legal representative has not contacted the Court since.
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.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the remainder of the application out of the list of cases.
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