CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 juin 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s30B52FCF { width:208.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 27117/02 by Richard CLARK against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24   June   2004 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 8 July 2002, Having regard to the partial decision of 12 November 2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Richard Clark, is a British national who was born in 1946 and lives in Gosport. He was unrepresented before the Court. 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 7 October 2000. On 9 August 2001, the applicant made a claim for bereavement benefits under the new system in place as from 9 April 2001. On 22 August 2001 the applicant’s claim was refused. On 11 January 2002 he was informed that his application would be accepted as a request for widows’ benefits. On 14 February 2002 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman. This decision was confirmed by an appeal tribunal on 25 February 2002. 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 benefit was 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 The applicant’s claim in effect refers to the alleged discriminatory treatment resulting from the payment to widows of the relevant benefits under the system in place before 9 April 2001. In the present case, in the absence of a claim for Widowed Mother’s Allowance and taking into consideration the partial decision of 12 November 2002, the relevant benefit in respect of the applicant is Widow’s Pension (“WP”). The Court held in its lead judgment regarding Widow’s Pension (“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 , cited above, §§ 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   §   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 Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Lawrence Early   Lech Garlicki   Registrar   President