CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 septembre 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 } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .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 } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .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 DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 7112/06 by Keith ROBSON against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9   September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Lech Garlicki, President,   Nicolas Bratza,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ledi Bianku,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and L awrence Early Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 February 2006, Having regard to the decision to communicate the application and apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Keith Robson, is a British national who was born in 1959 and lives in Hexham. He was represented before the Court by a Student Law Office in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. 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 and his wife were married in 1980 and had one child, born in 1981. The applicant’s wife died on 2 January 1993.On 4 January 1993 the applicant made an oral inquiry with the Department of Social Security and was told that he was not entitled to any benefits. On 17 June 2002 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for the payment of social security benefits. He applied for widows’ benefits, namely a Widow’s Payment (“Wpt”) and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance (“WMA”). On 23 October 2002 his application was dismissed as it was out of time. This decision was confirmed on 31 October 2002. The applicant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal claiming that his oral claim in 1993 constituted a valid claim for benefits. On 17   January   2005 the Tribunal ruled that a valid claim had been made by way of the oral inquiry made in 1993 and the Secretary of State should therefore make a decision on the outstanding claim of 1993. On 18 August 2005 the Department of Works and Pensions considered the 1993 claim and rejected it on the basis that the regulations governing the payment of widows’ benefits were specific to women. 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 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 By a letter of 12 September 2007 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that Mr Robson had been offered GBP 15,902.51 in respect of his claims for WPt and/or WMA including costs and interest and that he had accepted payment. On 24 September 2007 the Registry of the Court informed the parties that the Court would consider striking the application out of its list of cases following the settlement reached. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of WPt and/or WMA. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the application out of the list of cases. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike out of its list of cases the application.   Lawrence Early   Lech Garlicki   Registrar   President