FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27869/05
by Adrian WILKINSON
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 November 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 26 July 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Adrian Wilkinson, is a British national who was born in 1951 and lives in Lancashire. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Welsh, 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 23 June 1999.
On 13 November 2000 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance (“WBA”) to the Inland Revenue (“IR”). On 11 December 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in United Kingdom law allowing widowers to claim this benefit. On 27 February 2001 the applicant wrote back to the IR and on 5 March 2001 they reiterated their reply. On 9 March 2001, the applicant brought proceedings before the High Court under the Human Rights Act 1998. His claim was dismissed on 14 February 2002. On 18 June 2003 the applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and on 5 May 2005 the House of Lords dismissed his further appeal stating that the IRC had no power under national law to make such payments.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law and practice are described in the Court’s judgment in the case of Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities’ refusal to grant him WBA or equivalent constituted discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
By letters of 11 September 2008 and 24 September 2008 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that Mr Wilkinson had been offered 600 euros in respect of the costs of his claim for WBA and that he had accepted the offer and received payment. By a letter of 10 October 2008 the applicant’s representatives were informed that the Court would consider striking the application out of the list of cases following the friendly settlement reached.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of 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).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyLech Garlicki
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy