[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF GREENHALGH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application no. 61956/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly Settlement)
STRASBOURG
5 September 2006
This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Greenhalgh v. the United Kingdom,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Chamber composed of:
Mr J. Casadevall,
President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr M.
Pellonpää,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr J.
Šikuta, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 July 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an application 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
David Greenhalgh, a British national.
- Mr Greenhalgh was represented before the Court by Ms
Elaine Mills, a welfare rights adviser from the South Manchester Law
Centre. 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, that, because he was a man, he was denied social security
benefits equivalent to those received by female widows.
- After obtaining the parties’ observations, the
Court declared the application admissible on 4 November 2003.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- Mr David Greenhalgh was born on 5 November 1954 and
lives in Manchester. His wife died on 10 November 1999. The applicant
made a claim for widows’ benefits on 1 December 1999. His claim
was rejected on 3 December 1999 on the ground that he was not
entitled because he was not a woman. On 4 August 2000 the applicant
asked for a revision of the decision. No decision was made on the
review. The applicant’s appeal was refused by the Appeal
Tribunal on 12 September 2000.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The relevant domestic law and practice are described in
the Court’s judgment in Willis v. the United Kingdom,
no. 36042/97, §§ 14 26, ECHR 2002-IV.
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 is 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.
- On 13 October 2005 the applicant’s representative
sent a duly signed declaration informing the Court that the applicant
had been offered GBP 3,888.59 and that this payment would
constitute “the final resolution of the applicant’s claim
to a widowed mother’s allowance and/or widow’s payment”.
On 27 March 2006 the Government notified the Court that the applicant
had received payment of GBP 3,888.59.
- On 11 May 2006 the Registrar wrote to the applicant
informing him that, unless he objected before 26 May 2006, the
application would be struck off the Court’s case list. No
response was received to that letter.
- 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 or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of
the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
- Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of
the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the application out of its case list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 September 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
