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 £5, 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!



    BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

    European Court of Human Rights


    You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Thomas MURPHY v the United Kingdom - 28044/02 [2008] ECHR 868 (28 August 2008)
    URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/868.html
    Cite as: [2008] ECHR 868

    [New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]



    FOURTH SECTION

    FINAL DECISION

    AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

    Application no. 28044/02
    by Thomas MURPHY
    against the United Kingdom

    The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 August 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

    Lech Garlicki, President,
    Nicolas Bratza,
    Giovanni Bonello,
    Ljiljana Mijović,
    David Thór Björgvinsson,
    Ledi Bianku,
    Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
    and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

    Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 March 2001,

    Having regard to the partial decision of 4 November 2003,

    Having deliberated, decides as follows:

    THE FACTS

    The applicant, Mr Thomas Murphy, is a British national who was born in 1949 and lives in Skelmersdale. He was represented before the Court by Royds Rdw, solicitors 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 1 February 1996. On 20 September 2000 the applicant applied for widows’ benefits and his claim was rejected. On 28 September 2000 the applicant requested reconsideration; however, the previous decision was confirmed by an appeal tribunal some time later. 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 Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 14 26, ECHR 2002-IV and 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

    On 3 August 2007 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant’s representative a letter requesting the applicant to put forward any claims for a friendly settlement by 3 November 2007. The applicant’s representative did not reply. On 14 December 2007 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant’s representative another letter by registered mail stating that if he failed to contact the Court by 2 January 2008, it would be assumed that the applicant no longer wished to pursue his application. On 17 March 2008 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant’s representative another letter by registered mail stating that since he had not made contact, the Court would consider striking out the application from its list for lack of interest. The applicant’s representative has not contacted the Court since.

    In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols which require the continuation of the examination of the application.

    Accordingly, the remainder of the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.

    For these reasons, the Court unanimously

    Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.

    Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
    Registrar President




BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/868.html