[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Jack DAY v the United Kingdom - 70741/01 [2007] ECHR 972 (23 October 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/972.html Cite as: [2007] ECHR 972

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 70741/01
by Jack DAY
against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 October 2007 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 regard to the above application lodged on 25 May 2001,

Having regard to the partial decision of 10 September 2002, to communicate this application and to join it 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, 71176/01, 71428/01, 71429/01, 71570/01, 71758/01, 72656/01, 73646/01, 73653/01, 73978/01, 74961/01, 75092/01, 75993/01, 75995/01, 77129/01, 77424/01, 682/02, 2573/02, 4810/02, 10747/02, 13944/02, 14404/02 and 14537/02),

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jack Day, is a British national who was born in 1937 and lives in Lancashire. He was represented before the Court by Ms J. Starling, a lawyer practising 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 16 September 1999, leaving two children born in 1960 and 1963. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 25 May 2000 and was rejected on 22 August 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant appealed to the appeal Tribunal which heard and dismissed his claim on 27 November 2000. 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 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

Mr Day’s children were well over adult age at the time of his claim and therefore a woman in his position would have been entitled to a Widow’s Pension (“WP”).

However, the Court held in its lead judgment regarding 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, 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

Decides to disjoin the application from the others to which it was joined;

Decides to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application.

T. L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President