FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF HART AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

(Applications nos. 61019/00, 61394/00, 61398/00, 63471/00, and 63481/00)

JUDGMENT
(Friendly Settlement)

STRASBOURG

6 February 2007

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Hart and Others v. the United Kingdom,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
	Mr	 , President,
	Sir	Nicolas ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 	Mrs	  judges,
and Mr  , Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in five applications (nos. 61019/00, 61394/00, 61398/00, 63471/00, and 63481/00) 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 Paul Hart, Mr Patrick Clancy, Mr Durham Burt, Mr David Hill and Mr Jeffrey Lewis on 2 August 2000, 15 September 2000, 15 September 2000, 28 September 2000 and 29 September 2000 respectively.
2.  The applicants were all 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.
3.  The applicants complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because they were men, they were denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.
4.  By partial decision of 15 January 2002 the Court decided to communicate these applications. It also decided to join these applications to other applications (nos. 5837/00, 60274/00, 60940/00, 61781/00, 62966/00, 63476/00, 63478/00 and 63507/00).
5. On 6 May 2003, after obtaining the parties’ observations, the Court declared these applications admissible in so far as the complaints concerned Widowed Mother’s Allowance and declared the remainder of each application inadmissible.
THE FACTS
A.	THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A.	Mr Hart
5.  Mr Hart was born in 1957 and lives in West Sussex.
6.  His wife died on 10 May 1994. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on October 1997 and again in February 2000 and was rejected on 29 February 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 security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
B.	Mr Clancy
7.  Mr Clancy was born in 1950 and lives in Cornwall.
8.  His wife died on 17 November 1997. He tried to claim for benefits in late November 1997 but was told he was not entitled. His actual claim for widows’ benefits was then made on 26 May 2000 and was rejected on 2 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 security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
C.	Mr Burt
9.  Mr Burt was born in 1950 and lives in Edinburgh.
10.  His wife died on 17 February 1997. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 23 May 2000 and was rejected on 30 May 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 security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
D.	Mr Hill
11.  Mr Hill was born in 1939 and lives in Carmathenshire.
12.  His wife died on 28 March 1993. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 28 May 1993 but the Benefits Agency did not accept to process his claim. He wrote to the Benefits Agency again on 8 May 2000 and was rejected on 15 May 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 security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
E.	Mr Lewis
13.  Mr Lewis was born in 1944 and lives in Newport.
14.  His wife died on 11 July 1995. His claim for widows’ benefits was made in April 1999 and was rejected on 17 May 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 security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
B.	RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
15.  The relevant domestic law and practice are described in the Court’s judgment in Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 14‑26, ECHR 2002-IV.
THE LAW
16.  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.
17.  In May 2006 the respondent Government sent a list of applicants who had been proposed a settlement of their claims and who had accepted such payments, including the present applicants.
18. On the 15 May 2006 the applicants’ representative notified the Court that Mr Hart had been offered GBP 11,016.11, Mr Clancy had been offered GBP 10,564.06, Mr Burt had been offered GBP 7,162.40, Mr Hill had been offered GBP 7,062.08 and Mr Lewis had been offered GBP 8,392.56, and they had accepted payment. The representative was sent a letter on 13 October 2006 requesting a confirmation that no aspects of the applicants’ claims were ongoing and that consequently the Court would consider striking out each case from its list in its entirety. By a letter of 9 November 2006 the representative confirmed that there were no outstanding claims, thus the proceedings could be concluded.
19.  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).
20.  Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Decides to 

2.  Decides to strike the applications out of the list.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 February 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	T.L. Josep
	Registrar	President