BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF O'CONNELL AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Applications
nos. 58370/00, 61781/00 and 62966/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
22 May
2007
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of O'Connell and Others v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr J. Casadevall,
President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K.
Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P.
Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in three applications (nos. 58370/00, 61781/00 and
62966/00) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by Mr Daniel O'Connell, Mr Roy Smith and Mr Peter
Boak (“the applicants”), respectively on 9 June 2000, 8
August 2000 and 13 September 2000.
- The
first two applicants were represented before the Court by
Mr L. Allamby, a lawyer practising in Belfast. The third
applicant was unrepresented before the Court. The United Kingdom
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
- The
applicants complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because they were men, they were
denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by
widows.
- By
a partial decision of 15 January 2002 the Court decided to
communicate these applications, and to join them to other
applications (nos. 60274/00, 60940/00, 61019/00, 61394/00,
61398/00, 63471/00, 63476/00, 63478/00, 63481/00, 63507/00).
- On
6 May 2003, after obtaining the parties' observations, the Court
declared these applications admissible in so far as the complaints
concerned Widowed Mother's Allowance as from the date of the
applicants' second claims and declared the remainder of each
application inadmissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Mr O'Connell
- The
applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Belfast.
- His
wife died on 31 December 1993, leaving him with two children born in
1984 and 1986. His second claim for widows' benefits was made on 11
May 2000 and was rejected on 24 May 2000 on the ground that he was
not entitled to widows' benefits because 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
were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
B. Mr Smith
- The
applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Enniskillen.
- His
wife died on 11 November 1998, leaving him with two children born in
1985 and 1987. His second claim for widows' benefits was made on 10
May 2000 and was rejected on 18 May 2000 on the ground that he was
not entitled to widows' benefits because 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
were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
C. Mr Boak
- The
applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Port Talbot.
- His
wife died on 16 September 1990, leaving him with a child born in
1990. His second claim for widows' benefits was made on 3 May 2000
and was rejected some time after on the ground that he was not
entitled to widows' benefits because 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 security benefits were payable
to widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's
judgment in the case of Willis v. the United Kingdom, no.
36042/97, §§ 14 26, ECHR 2002-IV.
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 18 January 2007 the first two applicants' representative
notified the Court that Mr O'Connell had been offered GBP 5,210.20
and Mr Smith had been offered GBP 16,397.15 and that they had
accepted payment. On 19 January 2007 the representative was sent a
letter by the Registry stating that if no reply was received to the
contrary by 2 February 2007, the Court might consider striking out
the applications from its list in their entirety. The representative
has not sent a letter objecting to the striking out of the
applications. On 26 October 2006 Mr Boak notified the Court that a
settlement had been reached regarding his application. On 29 January
2007 the Registry informed him that he should provide details of the
settlement and that the Court would then consider striking out the
case from its list in its entirety. On 29 January 2007 Mr Boak
informed the Court that he had been offered GBP 6,017.65 in full and
final settlement and that he had accepted payment.
- The
Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties
(Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement
is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or
its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention
and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
- Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of
the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Decides
to disjoin
the applications from the others to which they were joined;
- Decides to strike the applications out of its
list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 May 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall Registrar President
