CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 octobre 2004

.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 } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; 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 } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; 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 } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .sB44325E2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .s61DBA209 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s9F65A205 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s71E8A580 { width:21.88pt; display:inline-block } .s606C2569 { width:204.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 14404/02 by George NEWBY against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 5 October 2004 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   M. Pellonpää , President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and Mr M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 March 2002, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant's wish to withdraw his application, Having deliberated, decides as follows:                   THE FACTS The applicant, George Newby, is a British national born in 1921 and lives in Norfolk. He was not represented before the Court. The respondent Government were represented by their agent, Mr Whomersley. The applicant's wife died on 29 August 1996. In February 2002 he became aware of a newspaper article concerning a widower who, on being told that he was not entitled to bereavement benefits, had applied to the European Court of Human Rights and received payment from the British Government in an out-of-court settlement.   On 1 March 2002, he contacted the Social Services Department claiming bereavement benefits, now that a precedent had been set. He was informed that eligibility criteria for any backdated claim included the existence of dependent children on the date of 9 April 2001 (the date of entry into force of the new legislation introducing bereavement benefits). Any claims made later could only be backdated for three months in accordance with the new legislation. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that he was declared ineligible for bereavement allowance whereas another widower was granted such benefits. He does not specifically invoke any articles of the Convention. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND COURT The application was introduced on 18   March   2002 and registered on 3   April 2002. On 10 September 2002 the application was joined with a number of other cases of a similar nature and communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on 6 May 2003. The applicant did not make any submissions in reply. On 27 July 2004 the applicant informed the Registry by letter that he wished to withdraw his application.           THE LAW The relevant part of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.” The Court notes that the time-limit to submit observations in reply to those of the respondent Government expired on 3 July 2003 and that nothing was heard from the applicant. On 27 July 2004, after a year of silence, the applicant informed the Registry of his wish to withdraw his case. In these circumstances the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend pursuing his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, and it finds no reasons of general interest concerning respect for human rights, within the meaning of the final sentence of Article 37 § 1, which would require the continued examination of the case.   For these reasons, the Court, unanimously Decides to disjoin the application from a group of similar cases. Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Michael O'Boyle   Matti Pellonpää   Registrar   President