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 DONOVAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 63466/00)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
6
March 2007
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Donovan 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 10 October 2001 and on 13 February 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned
date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 63466/00) 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 Martin
Donovan on 29 September 2000.
- The
applicant was represented before the Court by Pierce Glynn
Solicitors, London. 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.
- By
a partial decision of 10 October 2001 the Court decided to
communicate this application. On 8 April 2003, after obtaining the
parties' observations, the Court declared this application admissible
in so far as the complaints concerned Widowed Mother's Allowance and
declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Hilderstone Staffs.
- His
wife died on 4 July 1992, leaving him with two children born in 1979
and 1983. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 12 October 1999
and was rejected on 23 June 2000 on the ground that he was not
entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. 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 benefits
were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
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
15 May 2006 and again on 13 July 2006 the applicant's representatives
notified the Court that Mr Donovan had been offered GBP 6,346.34
and that he had accepted payment. The representatives were sent a
letter on 30 November 2006, informing them that the Court might
consider striking out the case from its list in its entirety. The
representatives have not sent a letter objecting to the striking out
of the application.
- 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 or
its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention
and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
- Accordingly,
the application should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the application out of the list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
