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!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF KETTLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 63584/00)
JUDGMENT
(Striking
out)
STRASBOURG
20
November 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Kettle v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr Josep Casadevall,
President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K.
Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Mrs P. Hirvelä,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 63584/00) 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 Alan
Philip Kettle (“the applicant”), on 2 October 2000.
- The
applicant was unrepresented before the Court. The United Kingdom
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to
grant him WBA or equivalent constituted discrimination on grounds of
sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
- By
a decision of 26 August 2003 the Court declared the application
partly admissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Worcestershire.
- His
wife died on 4 September 1996. On 9 September 2000 the applicant made
a claim to the Inland Revenue requesting an allowance equivalent to
that received by a widow, namely Widow's Bereavement Allowance
(“WBA”). On 20 September 2000 the Inland Revenue informed
him that he was ineligible for WBA as 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 such benefit was
payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's
judgment in the case of Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00 (BAILII: [2006] ECHR 976 ],
63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007.
THE LAW
- Article
37 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings
decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the
circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his
application; ...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the
application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention
and the protocols thereto so requires.”
- On
10 April 2007 the Registry requested the applicant to confirm by 16
May 2007 whether a friendly settlement had been reached in his case
following the decision in Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom (cited above) and
if not, to submit his claims under Article 41 of the Convention.
- By
letter dated 28 June 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was
notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's
observations had expired on 16 May 2007 and that no extension of time
had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37
§ 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may
strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead
to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the
application.
- On
19 July 2007 the applicant informed the Court that he wanted to
withdraw the application since the costs and expenses he had incurred
were fairly small and he was unable to provide vouchers to
substantiate them.
- The
Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be
regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the
meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in
accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds
no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as
defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the
continued examination of the case.
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 remainder of the application out of
its list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
