Skip to main content

Search Notes Common Room Case Library Flashcards Quizzes Past Papers SQE Tutors Leaderboard

Home›Case Library›HERBERT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 62868/00

EU & Human Rights

HERBERT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 62868/00

[2008] ECHR 62European Court of Human Rights2008

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All EU & Human Rights cases →

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President, Nicolas Bratza, Giovanni Bonello, Kristaq Traja, Stanislav Pavlovschi, Ján &Scaron;ikuta, Päivi Hirvelä, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar ,

The case originated in an application (no. 62868/00) 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 Mr George William Herbert (“the applicant”) on 5 September 2000.

The applicant was represented before the Court by Heswall Citizens Advice Bureau. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Full judgment transcript

BAILII · Verbatim mirror

Josep Casadevall, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Kristaq Traja,
Stanislav Pavlovschi,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 4 January 2008,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 62868/00) 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 Mr George William Herbert (“the applicant”) on 5 September 2000.

The applicant was represented before the Court by Heswall Citizens Advice Bureau. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because he was a man, he was denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.

By a partial decision of 10 October 2001 the Court decided to communicate the complaints concerning widows' benefits and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. By a decision of 8 April 2003 the Court declared the complaint regarding Widowed Mother's Allowance admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Preston.

His wife died on 11 November 1999, leaving two children born in 1992 and 1995. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 22 June 2000 and was rejected on 28 June 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 14-26, ECHR 2002-IV.

THE LAW

By a letter of 11 May 2005 the respondent Government informed the Court that the House of Lords had decided, in relation to the claims for Widowed Mother's Allowance (WMA) and Widow's Payment (WPt), that there was in principle no objective justification at the relevant time for not paying these benefits to widowers as well as widows, but that the Government had a defence under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the HRA). It noted that, in view of this, the multitude of cases before the Court and the fact that the HRA defence was only applicable in the domestic arena, the Government were prepared, in principle, to settle all claims made by widowers against the United Kingdom arising out of the arrangements applicable prior to April 2001 for the payment of WMA and WPt.

On 5 October 2005 the applicant's legal representative notified the Court that, as regards WMA, a friendly settlement had been reached between the parties as Mr Herbert had been offered GBP 11,368.14 and he had accepted payment. On 23 March 2006 the applicant's representatives were sent a letter by the Registry enquiring whether the applicant wished to continue his application with regard to Widow's Pension (WP). On 6 July 2007 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the applicant no longer wished to proceed with the latter complaint.

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of the claim for WMA (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). It further notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a), in respect of his claim for WP. In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols which require the continuation of the examination of this claim.

Accordingly, the remainder of the application should be struck out of the list.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2008, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Lawrence Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

Mirror
Read on BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute
Search
Search National Archives
Web
Find via Google
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately

More EU & Human Rights cases

ABDULLAH KILIC v. TURKIYE - 43979/17 (Judgment : Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed : Second Section) French Text

RADOI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 31590/15 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee)

DUGAN v. TURKIYE - 84543/17 (Judgment : Art 5 § 1 - Deprivation of liberty - Unjustified short-term detention at a police station of applicant, a transgender person, for disrupting traffic : Second Section)

[2023] ECHR 113

BABIN v. UKRAINE - 9245/19 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fifth Section Committee)

[2023] ECHR 138

MACATE v LITHUANIA - 61435/19 (Judgment : Freedom of expression - Temporary suspension of children's fairy tale book depicting same-sex relationships and its subsequent labelling as harmful to children under the age of 14 : Grand Chamber)

NIKITIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 74076/16 (Judgment : Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Third Section Committee)

Common Room

Discussion

0 comments · About the Common Room →

Log in to comment. Discussions are part of the Common Room.

No comments yet — start the discussion.

Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.

caselaw

AI-generated briefs should be verified against the source judgment. This tool is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

[email protected]

StudyCase Library Browse A–Z Notes Flashcards Quizzes Past Papers Guides Blog Topics

ToolsAll tools OSCOLA Case Finder Glossary Court hierarchy LLB SQE1 Oxford BA

CaselawAbout How it works Pricing For universities For law firms FAQ Changelog Contact Press

TrustSecurity Accessibility Status Terms Privacy Acceptable use Refunds Sign up

Used by Oxford law students·Powered by Anthropic AI·Cases from The National Archives·Payments by Stripe·GDPR Compliant

SQE revision content is produced by Caselaw independently. Caselaw is not affiliated with the SRA, Kaplan, or any official SQE provider. Refunds · Terms

© 2026 caselaw. All rights reserved.