FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 28006/02
by Ian HILL
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 March 2001,
Having regard to the partial decision of 6 May 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ian Hill, is a British national who was born in 1948 and lives in Leicester. 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 19 April 1998. On 14 June 2001 the applicant applied for widows' benefits. Some time later, the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed. The applicant did not appeal 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 20 August 2008 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant's representative a letter requesting the applicant to submit evidence as to whether he had made a claim in September 2000. The applicant's representative did not reply. On 26 September 2008 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant's representative another letter by registered mail stating that unless he submitted the required information by 10 October 2008, the Court would consider striking out the remainder of the application from the list for lack of interest. The applicant's representative did not reply. On 16 October 2008 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant's representative another letter by registered mail stating that since no reply had been received the Court would consider striking the case out of its list. The applicant's legal representative has not contacted the Court since on the matter.
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