[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF GAMBLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 68056/01)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
9 January
2007
This judgment is
final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gamble v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a 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 Mrs F. Elens-Passos Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 November 2003 and 5 December 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 68056/01) 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 Patrick
Gamble on 4 April 2001.
- The
applicant was represented before the Court by Pierce Glynn
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
partial decision of 12 March 2002 the Court decided to communicate
this application. It also decided to join the application to another
two applications (nos. 66293/01 and 67120/01).
- On
4 November 2003, after obtaining the parties’ observations, the
Court declared the application admissible in so far as this complaint
concerned Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance.
Further complaints of the applicant were declared inadmissible on the
same date.
THE FACTS
- The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in
Leicestershire.
- His wife died on 13 June 2000. They had one child born
in August 1997. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 10
July 2000 and was rejected on 17 July 2000 on the ground that he was
not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman.
The applicant did not appeal further as he was advised that such a
remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable
to widowers under United Kingdom law.
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.
- In
March 2006 the respondent Government sent a table setting out the
list of applicants who had been proposed a settlement of their
claims, including the present applicant.
- On
19 June 2006 the Court requested the applicant to confirm that a
settlement had been reached and payment accepted in respect of his
claims, together with costs.
- On
20 October 2006 the applicant informed the Court that he had been
offered GBP 5,849.55 in respect of damages and GBP 2,075.04 in
respect of costs and had accepted payment, thus concluding the case
between the parties.
- 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 case should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Decides to
disjoin the
application from the others to which it was joined;
2. Decides to strike the case out of the
list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 January 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Josep Casadevall
Deputy
Registrar President
