CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8E58DDC { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s34E8CD41 { width:126.74pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFDDB4DD2 { margin-left:11.67pt; text-align:center; padding-left:6.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 20367/24 K.S. and Others against the United Kingdom and 3 other applications (see appended tables) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9   April   2026 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphane Pisani , President ,   Juha Lavapuro,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended tables, Having regard to the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed as specified in the appended tables, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended tables. The applicants listed in the first appended table (Appendix 1) were represented by Ms C.   Hall (Child Poverty Action Group), a lawyer practising in London, until March 2026. In March 2026, Ms C.   Clarke (Child Poverty Action Group), also a lawyer practising in London, replaced Ms C.   Hall as the applicants’ representative. The applicants listed in the second appended table (Appendix 2) were represented by Ms T. Gregory (Leigh Day), a lawyer practising in London. The applicants’ complaints under Article   13 of the Convention and Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8 and/or Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 were communicated to the United Kingdom Government (“the Government”). The complaints concerned the Government’s policy of providing benefits to widowed parents with dependent children, which were initially only available to parents who were married to or in a civil partnership with the deceased at the time of death. The Government subsequently introduced a change in the law extending the availability of the benefits to cohabiting partners, but the applicants complained that the change was inadequate because it was of limited retrospective effect. Following communication of the applicants’ complaints, the parties informed the Court that they had agreed to settle the matter. The settlement under which the applicants agreed to have their applications struck out of the Court’s list of cases is subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amounts detailed in the appended tables. These amounts will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above ‑ mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. The applicants waive any further claims against the Government in respect of the facts giving rise to the applications. The Government does not accept liability for any breach of the Convention. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In view of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article   37 §   1   (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications under Article   37   §   1 in fine . Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 13 May 2026.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Stéphane Pisani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX 1 List of applications raising complaints under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Amount awarded to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (in pounds sterling) [1] Amount awarded to the applicants for costs and expenses (in pounds sterling) [2]     20367/24 15/07/2024 K.S. 1979   D.S. 2012   K.S. 2010 5,750 [3] 2,500     20391/24 15/07/2024 S.D. 1983   B.D. 2016 7,850 2,500     APPENDIX 2 List of applications raising complaints under Article   13 of the Convention and Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8 and/or Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 of the Convention   No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Amount awarded to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in pounds sterling) [4]   28982/24 03/10/2024 A.B. 1971   C.B. 1999   J.B. 2001 16,400     29144/24 03/10/2024 J.G. 1973   O.L. 2012 14,300     [1] Inclusive of any applicable tax. Payment to be made in accordance with the payment process agreed between the parties. [2] Inclusive of any applicable tax. Payment to be made in accordance with the payment process agreed between the parties. [3] To be divided equally between the three applicants. [4] Inclusive of any applicable tax.