PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 12895/02) 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 William Crilly (“the applicant”) on 26 September 2000.

The applicant was represented by Mr John Savage a financial accountant practising in Cornwall. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.

The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to grant him Widow's Bereavement Allowance or equivalent constituted discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

By a partial decision of 30 April 2002 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning Widow's Bereavement Allowance and declared inadmissible the remainder of the application. By a decision of 4 November 2003 the Court declared the remainder of the application admissible.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Devon.

His wife died on 10 March 1997. On 24 February 2000 the applicant's representative made a claim on behalf of the applicant to the Inland Revenue, requesting an allowance equivalent to that received by a widow, namely Widow's Bereavement Allowance (“WBA”) for the years 1996/7 and 1997/8. On 13 March 2000 the Inland Revenue informed him that he was ineligible for WBA as he was not a woman. The applicant's representative replied by letter on 16 March 2000 and again on 4 August 2000 arguing that the refusal was discriminatory. The Inland Revenue responded on 11 August 2000, maintaining its decision to refuse the allowance. The applicant's representative wrote also to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on whose behalf the Personal Tax Division of the Inland Revenue replied on 19 September 2000, confirming that the applicant, as a man, was not entitled to WBA. The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such benefit was payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.