FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
CASE OF HARRISON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
 
(Application no. 10721/02)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
 
17 July 2008
 
 
FINAL
 
 
17/10/2008
 
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Harrison v. the United Kingdom,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting 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 deliberated in private on 24 June 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 10721/02) 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 a British national, Mr Nigel Harrison (“the applicant”), on 22 January 2002. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms P. Glynn, a lawyer practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London. 3. By a partial decision of 15 October 2002 the Court decided to adjourn the applicant’s complaint in relation to Widowed Mother’s Allowance and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application. 4. Subsequently, under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, the Chamber to which the case had been allocated decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Staffordshire. 6. His wife died on 1 January 1996. 7. On 5 May 1996 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Allowance (“WBA”) to the Inland Revenue. On 23 November 2001 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in United Kingdom law allowing widowers to claim this benefit. 8. 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. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
9. The relevant domestic law and practice are described in the Court’s judgment in the case of Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
10. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities’ refusal to grant him WBA or equivalent constituted discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Article 14 of the Convention 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 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.”
1. Admissibility
11. The Court finds that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2. Merits
12. The Court has previously examined cases raising issues similar to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007, §§ 53-54). 13. The Court has examined the present case and finds that the Government have not presented any facts or arguments which would lead to any different conclusion in this instance. Therefore the Court considers that the difference in treatment between men and women as regards entitlement to WBA, of which the applicant was a victim, was not based on any “objective and reasonable justification” (see Hobbs, cited above, § 53). 14.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 14
Outcome: violation