FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Applications nos. 27971/02, 27994/02, 28043/02, 28094/02 and 28101/02 David CHATTERLEY and others against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 October 2003 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr M. Pellonpää , President , Sir Nicolas Bratza , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , judges , and Mrs F . Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the decision of 3 June 2003,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

A. The circumstances of the cases

See attached table.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law is set out in various decisions in respect of similar applications, see, for example, Dodds and others v the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 59314/00, 8 April 2003), McWilliams v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53738/00, 6 May 2003).

COMPLAINTS [Note1]

The applicants complain that British social security legislation discriminates against them 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 applicants complain that the lack of provision for widowers’ benefits under British social security legislation discriminates against them on grounds of sex.

Article 14 provides:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

Article 8 provides (as relevant):

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life ...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of ... the economic well-being of the country ...”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides:

“1. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

2. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires however that the Court may only deal with a matter where it has been introduced within six months from the date of the final domestic decision. In each case the refusal of the applicants’ claims for widows’ benefits, or advice from the benefits agency that no decision would be made because widows’ benefits were not payable to men, was the final domestic decision for the purposes of Article 35 (see for example, Gardner and 3 others v. the United Kingdom , (dec.), no. 12937/02, 30 April 2002).

The relevant date is set out in the attached table, together with the date on which the application in question was introduced. In all five cases, the applications were lodged with the Court more than six months after the date of the final domestic decision and must therefore be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Françoise Elens-Passos Matti Pellonpää Deputy Registrar President

ANNEX

Application  no.

and name

Date of Introduction of the application

Final domestic decision

27971/02 CHATTERLEY

31/05/01

24/11/00

27994/02 GILMORE

31/05/01

10/11/00

28043/02 MUGFORD

31/05/01

25/10/00

28094/02 TRESIGNE

31/05/01

06/10/00

28101/02 WATSON

25/10/01

31/10/00

[Note1] Use the present tense for communication of a case (the applicant complains) and the past for a decision (the applicant complained).