FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 63482/00 by Robin WOOD against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Lech Garlicki , President, Nicolas Bratza , Giovanni Bonello , Ljiljana Mijović , Ján Šikuta , Päivi Hirvelä , Ledi Bianku , judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 September 2000 ,

Having regard to the partial decision of 10 October 2001,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Robin Wood, is a British national who was born in 1948 and lives in Cheshire . He was represented before the Court by Pierce Glynn , solicitors 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 19 August 1999, leaving one child born in 1970 . In April or May 2000 the applicant applied for widows ’ benefits. On 4 May 2000 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman. By a letter of 12 June 2000 the benefits ’ agency confirmed their decision and the lack of his right to an appeal. T he applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social sec urity benefit w as payable to widowers under United Kingdom l aw .

The applicant was not in receipt of child benefit at the time of his claim.

B. 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 and 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

The Court recalls that a widow was not automatically entitled to survivors ’ benefits, but had to claim them from the relevant authority. Various time-limits applied: after 1997 a widow had to make a claim for Widow ’ s Payment within three mon ths of her husband ’ s death; a claim for Widowed Mother ’ s Allowance (“WMA”) or Widow ’ s Pension (“WP”) could be made outside that time-limit, but would be back-dated only three months . To be eligible for WMA , a woman had to be entitled to child benefit.

Consequently, in its partial decision of 10 October 2001 the Court declared inadmissible the applicants claim for Widow ’ s Payment as it had been made out of time. The same cannot be said of the claim for WMA. However, the Court observes that the applicant was not at the time in receipt of child benefit and therefore he could not claim to be a victim of discrimination, since a woman in the same position would not have been entitled to the benefit in question (see , mutatis mutandis , Rogan v. the United Kingdom , no. 57946/00, decision of 8 September 2001). Thus, the applicant cannot claim to have been a victim of a violation of his rights under the Convention and Protocol, and the complaint in respect of W MA is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention .

In relation to the claim for WP, 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, considering it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint in respect of Article 8, 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 § 4 2).

Consequently, this 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 declare inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki Registrar President