CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 24 avril 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s776E10E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Resolution ResDH(2003)51 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Friendly Settlement) of 15 July 2002 in the case of Michael Matthews against the United Kingdom   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 April 2003 at the 834th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Michael Matthews delivered on 15 July 2002 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention; Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 40302/98) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 February 1998 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr Michael William Matthews, a British national, and that the Court declared admissible the complaint that he had been the object of discrimination on grounds of sex in relation to his right to property since, as a man, he was not entitled to free travel on most public transport in greater London, before the age of 65 whereas women were entitled as from the age of 60; Whereas in its judgment of 15 July 2002 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber; Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of the United Kingdom would pay the applicant the sum of 242 Pounds sterling in respect of pecuniary damage and 25 000 Pounds sterling in respect of costs and expenses, within three months as from the notification of the judgment; Recalling that Rule 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that the striking-out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter; Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention; Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that alleged in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution; Having satisfied itself that on 31 July 2002, within the expiry of the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the friendly settlement, Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention.   Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2003)51 Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom during the examination of the Michael Matthews case by the Committee of Ministers By virtue of Statutory Instrument 2006/673, the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002, which amended section 93(7) of the Transport Act 1985, section 240(5) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and section 146 of the Transport Act 2000, entered into force in England on 1 April 2003. Under the new Act, all persons who have attained the age of sixty years, irrespective of their sex, are eligible to receive travel concessions in or outside Greater London. As regards Wales, the same effect is achieved by the Travel Concessions (Extension of Entitlement) Order 2001 (Statutory Instrument 2001/3765), which came into force on 1 April 2001. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore considers that there is no risk of a new situation similar to that found in the present case and that the United Kingdom has consequently complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention.