CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 mars 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s30B52FCF { width:208.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 42707/02 by John TOWNLEY against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Lech Garlicki, President,   Nicolas Bratza,   Giovanni Bonello,   Stanislav Pavlovschi,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ledi Bianku, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 2002, Having regard to the partial decision of 8 April 2003, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr John Townley, is a British national who was born in 1942 and lives in Liverpool. He was represented before the Court by Royds Rdw, solicitors 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’s wife died on 8 February 1991. On 11 January 2002, the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits. On 16 January 2002 he was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman. On 7   February 2002 the applicant made a request for reconsideration. On 13February 2002 the applicant was informed that the legislation had not changed and that he was not eligible for such benefits. He subsequently appealed against this decision. On 10 April 2002 he was advised that his appeal had been struck out because it had been introduced out of time. The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under United Kingdom law. The applicant was not in receipt of child benefit at the time of his claim. B.     Relevant domestic law The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom , no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007 and Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom , nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26   March   2007. COMPLAINT The applicant complained 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 The applicant has made no express claim for Widow’s Bereavement Allowance (“WBA”); nevertheless, it does appear that when applying for benefits he also claimed the said tax allowance. However, the applicant has provided no evidence of having applied to the Inland Revenue, requesting an allowance equivalent to that received by a widow. In Cornwell v. the United Kingdom (application no. 36578/97, decision of 11 May 1999), the Court held that until a person has made a claim for the relevant widows’   benefits he will not suffer any discrimination since a woman in the same position would not be entitled to those benefits under domestic law. Thus, in the present case, the applicant cannot be said to have been directly affected by the discrimination of which he complains, since a woman in the same position, who had not applied for WBA to the Inland Revenue in accordance with domestic law, would have had no entitlement to WBA under domestic law (see, mutatis mutandis , Rogan v. the United Kingdom , no. 57946/00, decision of 8 September 2001). It follows that the applicant cannot claim to have been a victim of a violation of his rights under the Convention and the First Protocol, and that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Regarding Widow’s Pension (“WP”), the Court held in its lead judgment that at its origin, and until its abolition in respect of women whose spouses died after 9 April 2001, WP was intended to correct “factual inequalities” between older widows, as a group, and the rest of the population and that this difference in treatment was reasonably and objectively justified. Moreover, the Court considered that the United Kingdom could not be criticised for not having abolished WP earlier and that it was not unreasonable of the legislature to decide to introduce the reform slowly (see Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom , no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007). The Court, consequently, considering it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint in respect of Article 8, did not find a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the non-payment to the applicants of Widow’s Pension or equivalent ( ibid §   42). Consequently, the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court Decides to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Lawrence Early   Lech Garlicki   Registrar   President