CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 janvier 2006

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFAE0EDB { width:215.97pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 14537/02 by Kenneth MURRAY against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10   January 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J. Casadevall , President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,   Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 March 2002, Having regard to the information submitted by the applicant’s representatives that the applicant is deceased and that he has no heirs who wish to continue with the application, Having deliberated, decides as follows:                   THE FACTS The applicant, Kenneth Murray, is a British national who was born in 1940 and who died in 2004 He is represented before the Court by Marian Jones from the Community Law Centre in Warrington. The applicant’s wife died on 13 January 1998. In 2002 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for the payment of social security benefits. He applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). He was informed that the Benefits Agency was unable to accept his application as a valid claim because the regulations governing the payment of widows’ benefits were specific to women. COMPLAINT The applicant complained that British social security and tax 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. THE PROCEEDINGS The application was communicated to the Government of United Kingdom on 10 September 2002 as part of a group of 49 cases. On 11 October 2005 the respondent Government informed the Court that the applicant was dead. By a letter dated 30 October 2005, the applicant’s representatives confirmed that the applicant had died in 2004. On 27 November 2005 they informed the Court that he had no heirs who wished to pursue the application. In accordance with Article 37 § 1, there is no reason which would justify the continuation of the examination of the application. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to disjoin the application; Decides to strike the application off its list of cases. Michael O’Boyle   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President