CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 mai 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8C2BF086 { width:220.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 71176/01 by Christopher J PARTRIDGE against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22   May 2007 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 regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 2001, Having regard to the partial decision of 10 September 2002, to communicate this application and to join it to other applications (nos.   58372/00, 61878/00, 63477/00, 63480/00, 63647/00, 63961/00, 64986/01, 64996/01, 65202/01, 65478/01, 65507/01, 65741/01, 65906/01, 66181/01, 67100/01, 67913/01, 68173/01, 68175/01, 68264/01, 68298/01, 68449/01, 69076/01, 69323/01, 69327/01, 69491/01, 70521/01, 70741/01, 71176/01, 71428/01, 71429/01, 71570/01, 71758/01, 72656/01, 73646/01, 73653/01, 73978/01, 74961/01, 75092/01, 75126/01, 75993/01, 75995/01, 77129/01, 77424/01, 682/02, 2573/02, 4810/02, 10747/02, 13944/02, 14404/02 and 14537/02), Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Christopher J. Partridge, is a British national who was born in 1961 and lives in West Midlands. He was represented before the Court by Ms Jacky Starling, 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 was widowed on 12 April 2000. There were two children of the marriage, born in 1988 and 1990 respectively. On 25 April 2000 the applicant notified the Benefits Agency of his wife’s death with a view to making a claim if he could. On 21 July 2000 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for payment of social security benefits. By a decision notified on 21 August 2000 the Benefits Agency rejected his claim on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. On 1 September 2000 the applicant appealed. On 22 December 2000 the appeal was dismissed. The decision was notified on 2 January 2001. The applicant did not try any further appeals 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.     Relevant domestic law The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Willis v. the United Kingdom , no. 36042/97, §§ 14-26, ECHR 2002-IV. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that British social security 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 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 30 January 2007 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that Mr Patridge had been offered GBP 6,318.11 and that he had accepted payment. On 8 March 2007 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that Mr Partridge had now remarried and that it would be appropriate to strike out the application in its entirety, including his claim for Widow’s Pension. The Government were informed of the applicant’s intention by a letter dated 16 March 2007 and presented no objection. On the same day the applicant’s representative was sent a letter stating that in view of the friendly settlement reached and the request to withdraw Mr   Partridge’s claim regarding Widow’s Pension, the Court would consider striking out the case from its list in its entirety, unless she informed the Court to the contrary by 16 April 2007. The applicant’s representative has not sent a letter objecting to the striking out of the application. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of the claims for Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance (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). It further notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) in respect of his claim for Widow’s Pension. In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols which require the continuation of the examination of this claim. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to disjoin this application from the applications to which it was joined; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President