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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Kenneth Thomas ASPINALL v the United Kingdom - 26218/04 [2008] ECHR 311 (18 March 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/311.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 311 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
26218/04
by Kenneth Thomas ASPINALL
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 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 21 August 2003,
Having regard to the decision to join this application to other applications (nos. 28067/02, 28087/02, 14401/03, 4839/03, 17233/03, 22361/03, 26083/03, 27988/03, 30242/03, 35695/03, 345/04, 5069/04, 11872/04, 36534/04, 1503/05, 18566/05),
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Kenneth Thomas Aspinall, is a British national who was born in 1951 and lives in Liverpool. He was represented before the Court by Ms J. Starling, a lawyer practising 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 21 October 1998, leaving two children born in 1980 and 1983. By a letter of 29 December 2002, the applicant sought to claim a Widow’s Pension (“WP”). On 26 February 2003, the Department for Works and Pension (“DWP”) asked the applicant to fill in a claim form which he duly did and returned to them. On 12 March 2003 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman. By a letter of 10 April 2003 the applicant appealed. On 27 November the appeal was heard and dismissed. On 12 January 2004 the applicant appealed to the Social Security Commissioner who on 28 May 2004 issued a direction stating that he was minded to refuse the appeal.
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.
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.
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
Mr Apinall’s children were over adult age at the time of his claim and therefore a woman in his position would have been entitled to a WP.
However, the Court held in its lead judgment regarding WP 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.
In view of the above it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to disjoin the application from the others to which it was joined;
Decides to declare inadmissible the application.
Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
Registrar President