003-68207-68675

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS    287  25.4.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments concerning the United Kingdom, France and the Czech Republic.   Section 3   1) Cornwell v. the United Kingdom (Application number 36578/97)Friendly settlement   David Cornwell is a British national whose wife died on 24 October 1989. He has a son, born on 24 April 1988, whom he cares for and in respect of whom he receives Child Benefit. On 7 February 1997 the applicant’s representative contacted the Benefits Agency of the Department of Social Security to inquire about the statutory provisions for receiving widows’ benefits, namely a Widowed Mother’s Allowance (WMA) and a Widow’s Payment, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992. On 23 April 1997 the Benefits Agency confirmed that if the applicant were a woman and his wife had been a man, he would, following her death, have been entitled to receive Widowed Mother’s Allowance at the full 100% basic rate plus additional pension money which had been earned by virtue of the rate of contributions paid after 1978.   The applicant complained that the lack of benefits for widowers under British social security legislation discriminated against him on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, taken in conjunction with both Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which Mr Cornwell is to be paid 11,904.60 British pounds (GBP) in respect of benefits which he would have received from 7 February 1997 to 12 July 1999 had he been a bereaved widow. He will further receive weekly payments, backdated to 12 July 1999, which he would have received as WMA if he had been a bereaved widow, until the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill enters into force. The judgment exists only in English.   2) Leary v. the United Kingdom (no. 38890/97) Friendly settlement   John Leary, a British national, married in 1981 and had three daughters, born in 1987, 1990 and 1994. His wife died in 1997 leaving him as the administrator of her estate. On 4 August 1997, the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for social security benefits. These benefits are equivalent to those to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment and a WMA. By a letter dated 6 August 1997, the Benefits Agency informed the applicant that they were unable to accept his application as a valid claim because the regulations governing the payment of widows’ benefits were specific to women.   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 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which Mr Leary is to be paid GBP 12,226.20 in respect of benefits which he would have received from 27 May 1997 to 12 July 1999 had he been a bereaved widow. He will further receive weekly payments, backdated to 12 July 1999, which he would receive as WMA if he were a bereaved widow, until the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill enters into force. (Judgment in English.)   3) Rizzotto v. France (no. 31115/96) Struck off   Alain Rizzotto, a French national, complained about the length of his detention on remand and criminal proceedings brought against him in connection with drug trafficking. The European Court of Human Rights decided unanimously to strike out the case in view of the failure by the applicant’s representative to submit a memorial on the merits of the case. (Judgment in French).   4) Punzelt v. Czech Republic (no. 31315/96) Violation Article 5 § 3   Siegfried Punzelt, a German national, complained about the length of his detention on remand (over two and a half years) in the Czech Republic. He was taken into custody with a view to his extradition to Germany, where the authorities had issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of fraud and forgery. He also complained about the length of criminal proceedings brought against him, which lasted over three years and three months The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the applicant’s detention on remand but no violation on account of the refusal to release him on bail. The Court further held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. The applicant was awarded 10,000 German marks (DM) for non-pecuniary damage and DM 10,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English).     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) Or:   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax:    (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in 1959 in Strasbourg to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.  On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.