FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 71758/01
by Brian WORSLEY
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and awrence Early Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 May 2001,
Having regard to the partial decision of 10 September 2002, inter alia, to join the application to other applications (nos. 58372/00, 61878/00, 63477/00, 63480/00, 63647/00, 63961/00, 64986/01, 64996/01, 65202/01, 65478/01, 65507/01, 65741/01, 65906/01, 66181/01, 67100/01, 67913/01, 68173/01, 68175/01, 68264/01, 68298/01, 68449/01, 69076/01, 69323/01, 69327/01, 69491/01, 70521/01, 70741/01, 71176/01, 71428/01, 71429/01, 71570/01, 72656/01, 73646/01, 73653/01, 73978/01, 74961/01, 75092/01, 75126/01, 75993/01, 75995/01, 77129/01, 77424/01, 682/02, 2573/02, 4810/02, 10747/02, 13944/02, 14404/02 and 14537/02),
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Brian Worsley, is a British national who was born in 1958 and lives in Manchester. He was represented before the Court by Richard Copson, a solicitor practicing in Manchester. 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 4 June 1998 leaving two children born in 1981 and 1993. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 22 August 2000 and was rejected on 29 August 2000, on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. On 28 September 2000 the applicant appealed and on 20 November 2000, the appeal tribunal upheld the previous decision. 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 benefits were 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.
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.
By a letter of 21 June 2007 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that Mr Worsley had been offered GBP 190.63 in respect of his claims for WPt and/or WMA including costs and that he had accepted payment. On 5 July 2007 the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that the applicant had received payment, and consented to his application being struck off the list.
 The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of WPt and/or WMA. 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).
 In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the remainder of the application out of the list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to disjoin the application from the other applications to which it was joined;
Decides to strike out of its list of cases the remainder of the application.
	Lawrence Early	Lech Garlicki
	Registrar	President