BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF ROBERTSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 12828/02)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
1
April 2008
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Robertson v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Lech
Garlicki,
President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 11 March 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 12828/02) 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”) by Mr John
Robertson (“the applicant”) on 1 March 2000.
- The
applicant was represented before the Court by Royds, solicitors,
London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office.
- The
applicant complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because he was a man, he was denied
social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.
- By
a partial decision of 30 April 2002 the Court decided to communicate
the complaints concerning widows' benefits and declared the remainder
of the application inadmissible. By a decision of 4 November 2003
the Court declared the complaint regarding Widowed Mother's Allowance
admissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Carlisle.
- His
wife died on 28 January 1997 leaving three children born in 1983,
1985 and 1988. His claim for Widowed Mother's Allowance was made on
5 June 2000 and was rejected on 12 June 2000 on the ground that
he was not entitled to Widowed Mother's Allowance because he was not
a woman.
- On 19 June 2000 the applicant requested a
reconsideration of this decision. On 20 June 2000 the decision was
confirmed. On 26 June 2000 the applicant appealed. On 22 September
2000 the appeal was heard and the decision upheld.
- The
applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that
such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were
payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. 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 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 11 December 2007 the applicant's representatives
informed the Court that Mr Robertson had been offered GBP 9,236.04
and that he had accepted the offer. On 4 February 2008 the
applicant's legal representatives were sent a letter by the Registry
stating that the Court would consider striking the application out of
its list of cases.
- The
Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties
(Article 39 of the Convention). 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).
- Accordingly,
the remainder of the application should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its
list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 April 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Lech
Garlicki
Registrar President
