FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 27993/02
by Edward GALLACHER
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 October 2001,
Having regard to the partial decision of 12 November 2002,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Edward Gallacher, is a British national who was born in 1939 and lives in Bedfordshire. 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 13 May 2000. They had no children from the marriage. On 8 July 2000 the applicant applied for widows’ benefits. On 17 July 2001 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman. The applicant contacted the Benefits Agency on 23 July and was told that he would receive no further correspondence on the matter. The applicant did not appeal further 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 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
The Court held in its lead judgment regarding Widow’s Pension (“WP”) that at its origin, and until its abolition in respect of women whose spouses died after 9 April 2001, WP was intended to correct “factual inequalities” between older widows, as a group, and the rest of the population and that this difference in treatment was reasonably and objectively justified. Moreover, the Court considered that the United Kingdom could not be criticised for not having abolished WP earlier and that it was not unreasonable of the legislature to decide to introduce the reform slowly (see Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007). The Court, consequently, considering it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint in respect of Article 8, did not find a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the non-payment to the applicants of Widow’s Pension or equivalent (ibid § 42).
Consequently, the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application.
	Lawrence Early	Lech Garlicki
	Registrar	President