CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 novembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE8AB5E19 { width:28.69pt; display:inline-block } .sEF404172 { width:152.3pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s6C2D746E { width:198.98pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 78147/01 by Alec KAY against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   November 2003 as a Chamber composed of:   Mrs   V. Strážnická , President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and Mrs F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 October 2001, Having regard to the partial decision of 15 October 2002, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows:                   THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Alec Kay, was a United Kingdom national who was born in 1913 and lived in Harrogate. 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 in 1998. In September 2000 the applicant made a claim to the Inland Revenue for the allowance against income tax which was payable to widows by virtue of section 262 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The Inland Revenue refused the application on 22   September 2000. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained that British tax legislation discriminated against him on grounds of sex. PROCEDURE The application was communicated to the respondent Government on 24   October 2002. In their observations dated 13 March 2003, the Government observed, inter alia , that the applicant had recently died. A letter sent by the Registry to the applicant’s address on 24 March 2003 was returned marked ‘gone away’. No communication has been received by or on behalf of the applicant since May 2002. In particular no representative of the applicant’s estate has indicated a wish to pursue the application on his behalf. THE LAW The Court notes that the applicant has died and that no representative of his estate has requested permission to pursue the application. In the circumstances it find that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) 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.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Viera Strážnická   Deputy Registrar   President