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 FORBES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 65727/01)
JUDGMENT
Friendly
settlement
STRASBOURG
12
June 2007
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Forbes 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 22 May 2007
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 65727/01) 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 Douglas
I. Forbes (“the applicant”) on 2 February 2001.
- The
applicant was represented before the Court by Ms J. Starling, a
solicitor practising in 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.
4 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 complaint concerned Widowed Mother's Allowance and
declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Coventry.
- His
wife died on 29 June 1999, leaving him with a child born in 1989. His
claim for widows' benefits was made in or about July 2000 and was
rejected on 18 July 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to
widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant wrote back
to the Benefits Agency requesting to submit his claim to a decision
maker. On 4 August 2000 the Benefits Agency replied that there was no
legislation providing an equivalent to widows' benefits for a man and
therefore an appeal could not be allowed. The applicant did not
appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy
would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to
widowers under United Kingdom law.
II. 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.
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
the 29 January 2007 the applicant's representative notified the Court
that Mr Forbes had been offered GBP 8,906.72 and that he had accepted
payment. The representative was sent a letter on 5 February 2007
informing her that no aspects of the applicant's claims were ongoing
and therefore the Court would now consider striking out the case from
its list in its entirety, unless information to the contrary reached
the Court by 5 March 2007. The representative has not sent a letter
objecting to the strike out.
- 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 its list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 June 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
