FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 36951/02
by Joseph RILEY
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 November 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 October 2002,
Having regard to the partial decision of 8 April 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Joseph Riley, is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1932 and lives in Liverpool. He is represented before the Court by Mr B. McBreen, a lawyer practising in Huyton.
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 4 November 1974. The applicant completed an application for widows’ benefits on 10 February 2002. On 18 February 2002 the application was refused. The applicant appealed and on 20 August 2002 the Appeal Tribunal decided that the appeal could not succeed because the applicant was not a woman.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that British social security legislation discriminated against him on grounds of sex.
THE LAW
By partial decision of 8 April 2003, the application was declared inadmissible for the period before the applicant made his claim for benefits, on 10 February 2002. The Government submitted inter alia that, at the time of his claim the applicant would not, even if a woman, have been entitled to any bereavement benefits because he was over the pension age at the date of his claim for a widow’s pension and so would not satisfy the conditions for entitlement had he been a woman. He could not therefore be said to be a ‘victim’ for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention. In a letter dated 2 September 2003 the applicant’s representative indicated that there was no point in pursuing the complaint.
The Court finds that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’BoyleMatti Pellonpää
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy