FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 28105/02
by Ian WHITE
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22 May 2007 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 regard to the above application lodged on 18 May 2001,
Having regard to the partial decision of 12 November 2002,
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, Ian White, is a British national who was born in 1944 and lives in Cornwall. He was represented before the Court by Royds RDW, Solicitors, 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 was in receipt of child benefit until 1993 or 1994. His wife died on 8 January 1996 and he remarried in 1998.
His formal claim for widows’ benefits was made in October 2000 and was rejected on 12 October 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant requested the Benefits Agency to reconsider this decision. On 7 February 2001 the original decision was confirmed.
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 applicant complains under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because he was a man, he was not entitled to the equivalent of widows’ benefits.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the lack of provision for widowers’ benefits under 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.
Article 14 provides:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
Article 8 provides (as relevant):
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life ... .
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of ... the economic well-being of the country ... .”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides:
“1. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
2. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Government submitted that the applicant was not in receipt of Child Benefit at the date of his claim for bereavement benefits in 2000 and that he had remarried in 1998. A woman in his position would not have been entitled to widows’ benefits, and the claim was, therefore, inadmissible.
The Court recalls that under Article 34 of the Convention it may receive applications from individuals and others “claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols thereto”. In order to claim to be a victim of a violation, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure (see, for example, Cornwell v. the United Kingdom, no. 36578/97, decision of 11 May 1999).
Under the legislation providing for widow’s benefits at the relevant time (see Willis cited above), a widow was not automatically entitled to survivors’ benefits, but had to claim them from the relevant authority within the applicable time-limits. The widow was not entitled to the pension for any period after she remarried.
The Court considers, as it held in Cornwell, that unless or until a man has made a claim to the domestic authorities for bereavement benefits, he cannot be regarded as a “victim” of the alleged discrimination involved in the refusal to pay such benefits, because a woman in the same position would not automatically be entitled to widow’s benefits until having made a claim (but see also White v. the United Kingdom, no. 53134/99, decision of 7 June 2001, where the Court clarified that, as long as an applicant had made clear to the authorities his intention to claim benefits, the precise form in which he did so was not important).
In the present case, by the time of his formal application in 2000, the applicant had remarried. A woman who had remarried would not have been entitled to widow’s benefits, and the applicant cannot, therefore, claim to be a victim of discriminatory treatment.
It follows that the applicant cannot claim to have been a victim of a violation of his rights under the Convention and its Protocols, and that the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
T.L. EarlyJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy