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 CAIRNEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 45773/99)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
20
November 2007
This judgment is final
but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Cairney 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 L.
Garlicki,
Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr
T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 45773/99) against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the
European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”)
under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr
Denis Cairney (“the applicant”), on 8 January 1999.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr J. MacDonald, a solicitor with
McArthur Stanton, Dumbarton, Scotland. The United Kingdom Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent,
Mr C. A. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, London.
- 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.
-
On 7 March 2000, after obtaining the parties' observations, the Court
declared the application admissible in so far as the complaint
concerned Widowed Mother's Allowance related to the period from 22
May 1998 onwards, and inadmissible for the rest.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Dumbarton.
- His
wife died on 25 April 1995 leaving a child born in 1994. His formal
claim for Widowed Mother's Allowance (“WMA”) was made on
22 May 1998 and was rejected on 31 July 1998 on the ground that
he was not entitled to WMA because he was not a woman. 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.
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
- 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 29 May 2007 the applicant's legal representative notified the
Court that a friendly settlement had been reached between the
parties. By a letter of 27 July 2007 he informed the Court that Mr
Cairney had been offered GBP 4,729.91 and that he had accepted
payment. On 10 August 2007 the parties were sent a letter by the
Registry stating that the Court would consider striking the
application out of its list of cases.
- 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 and
its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention
and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
- Accordingly,
the remainder of the application should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its
list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T. L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
