PROCEDURE

The case originated in four applications (nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00) 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 four British nationals, Mr Thomas William Hobbs, Mr Ian Richard, Mr Paul Walsh and Mr David Nigel Geen (“the applicants”), on 27 October 2000 (Mr Hobbs), 26 September 2000 (Mr Richard), and 29 September 2000 (Mr Walsh and Mr Geen).

The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London. Mr Richard, Mr Walsh and Mr Geen were represented by Ms P. Glynn, a solicitor practising in London. Mr Hobbs was not represented before the Court.

By decisions dated 18 June 2002 (application no. 63684/00) and 8 April 2003 (nos. 63468/00, 63475/00 and 63484/00), the Court declared the applications partly admissible. In September 2003 the applications were adjourned pending the conclusion of related domestic proceedings (see paragraph 26-28 below). On 1 July 2005 the Court invited the parties to submit observations on the merits.

The Government and the applicants represented by Ms Glynn requested a hearing on the merits. On the date of the adoption of the present judgment the Court decided that a hearing would not be necessary.

By a letter dated 2 August 2006, Mr Walsh, Mr Geen and Mr Richard informed the Court that they had reached a friendly settlement with the Government in respect of their claims for Widowed Mother’s Allowance and/or Widow’s Payment, for the following sums: GBP 19,164.94 damages plus GBP 2,469.84 costs for Mr Richard; GB 7,767.59 damages plus GBP 2,699.40 costs for Mr Geen; GBP 11,783.98 damages plus GBP 1,860.00 costs for Mr Walsh.

By a letter dated 24 July 2006, the non-governmental organisation Liberty sought leave to submit third-party observations in the case. The request was rejected by the President of the Chamber on 28 August 2006.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES

The facts of each case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

A. Mr Hobbs, no. 63684/00

Mr Thomas William Hobbs is a United Kingdom national, born in 1921 and living in Southampton.

The applicant’s wife died on 25 February 1998. On 11 October 2000 he contacted the Inland Revenue (“IR”) and applied for widow’s bereavement allowance (“WBA”: see paragraph 21 below) for the years 1998/9 and 1999/2000. He was informed that he did not qualify for the tax allowance, since he was a man and the law provided only for payments to widows.

B. Mr Richard, no. 63475/00

Mr Richard was born on 21 May 1957 and lives in Dunfermline. He was widowed on 14 October 1995. There were two children of the marriage, born in 1987 and 1993.

In around November 1995 the applicant telephoned the IR requesting an allowance equivalent to that received by a widow. The IR told him that he was ineligible for WBA. The applicant applied again by letter dated 19 July 2000, but by a letter dated 3 August 2000 he was informed the WBA was not available for widowers.

In around June 1997 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency (“BA”) for social security benefits equivalent to those to which a widow would have been entitled (see paragraphs 29-37 below). His claim was refused by the BA on 18 June 1997. The applicant wrote on 22 June 1997 requesting an appeal against this decision and requesting that the appeal be heard after the Court had decided the lead case on widowers’ benefits. On 8 May 2000 the applicant requested that his appeal be proceeded with. It was rejected on 15 May 2000.

The applicant began living with another woman in October 1999. In August 2000 he reapplied for widows’ benefits and was refused again on 16 August 2000.

C. Mr Walsh, no. 63484/00

Mr Walsh was born on 19 July 1955 and lives in London. He was widowed on 1 March 1997. There were two children of the marriage, born on 22 February 1991 and 29 December 1992.

On 30 May 2000, the applicant applied to the BA for social security benefits equivalent to those which a widow in his circumstances would receive. He was refused by a letter dated 6 June 2000.

On 3 July 2000 the applicant applied to the IR for a WBA or equivalent. He was refused by a letter dated 11 July 2000.

D. Mr Geen, no. 63468/00

The applicant was born on 20 October 1958 and lives in Maidenhead. His wife died on 17 October 1995. There were three children of the marriage, born 18 November 1987, 22 August 1989 and 22 April 1992.

In his application form, which was lodged with the Court by facsimile under cover of an introductory letter dated 29 September 2000, there was a general complaint about the discriminatory nature of the widow’s social security and taxation systems, in standard paragraphs included in all the widowers’ applications submitted by the applicant’s solicitors. In the section dealing with the particular facts of the applicant’s case, there was no mention of any contact with the IR concerning WBA. An amended application form was sent to the Court under cover of a letter dated 15 March 2001. A paragraph had been added, stating that in or around December 1995 or January 1996 the applicant had made enquiries at his local tax office about entitlement to tax rebates or allowances following bereavement, and had been told that he had no entitlement. Reference was made in the amended application form also to “the decision of the Inland Revenue made in July 1996 which is ongoing”, and on 26 March 2001 the applicant sent the Court a copy of a letter of refusal from the IR dated 9 July 1996.

On 30 May 2000 the applicant applied to the BA for survivor’s benefits. He was refused by a letter dated 5 June 2000. This information was included in the application form lodged on 29 September 2000.

In their observations on admissibility dated 4 October 2002, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had also made a formal claim to the IR for WBA on 29 September 2000, which had been refused on 3 October 2000. This was confirmed by the applicant in his observations dated 28 November 2002.