[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF MCWILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 53738/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
9
October 2007
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of McWilliams 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 K.
Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P.
Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 May 2003 and on18 September 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned
date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 53738/00) 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 Charles McWilliams (“the applicant”) on 1
October 1999.
2. The applicant was represented before this Court by John Ross
& Son, solicitors practising in Newtownards, Northern
Ireland. 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.
- On
6 May 2003, after obtaining the parties' observations, the Court
declared the application admissible in so far as this complaint
concerned Widowed Mother's Allowance.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Bangor, Co. Down, Northern
Ireland.
- His
wife died on 3 May 1999 leaving a child born in 1984. His claim for
Widowed Mother's Allowance was made on 9 November 2000 and was
rejected on 19 December 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled
to Widowed Mother's Allowance because he was not a woman. 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.
-
On 16 March 2007 the applicant's legal representatives notified the
Court that a friendly settlement had been reached between the
parties. By a letter of 30 March 2007 they informed the Court that Mr
McWilliams had been offered GBP 7,035.56 and that he had accepted
payment. On 17 April 2007 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 9 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T. L. Early Josep Casadeval l
Registrar President
