Matthews v United Kingdom
| Date | 15 July 2002 |
| Docket Number | (Application No 40302/98),(Application No 24833/94) |
| Court | European Court of Human Rights |
European Court of Human Rights
Before J-P. Costa, President, and Judges W. Fuhrmann, L. Loucaides, Sir Nicolas Bratza, H. S. Greve, K. Traja and M. Ugrekhelidze. Section Registrar S. Dolle.
Human rights - future amendment to domestic legislation - ECHR can strike out a case - discrimination - Article 14 - Article 1 of protocol No 1 - The Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002 in force April 1, 2003 by virtue of statutory instrument 2002/673 - Travel Concessions (Extension of Entitlement) Order (SI 2001 No 3765).
Future amendments to legislation and an agreement between the parties meant that the European Court of Human Rights could strike out a case because a friendly settlement based on respect for human rights had been found.
Mr Michael Matthews was born in 1933 and lived in London. On October 10, 1997, aged 64, he applied at his local post office for an elderly person's travel permit, which would have entitled him to free travel on most public transport in Greater London.
His application was refused because, under British law at the time, such a permit could only be provided to men who were aged 65 or over, whereas women were eligible to receive such a permit, subject to the provisions of their local scheme, at the age of 60 or over.
He complained of discrimination on the ground of sex in relation to his right to property, contrary to article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibited discrimination and article 1 of Protocol No 1 of the Convention, which protected property rights.
On April 24, 2002 the UK Government informed the European Court of Human Rights and the applicant's representative that, in relation to England, the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002 would come into force on April 1, 2003, by virtue of Statutory Instrument 2002/673. As regarded Wales, the same effect would be achieved by the Travel Concessions (Extension of Entitlement) Order (SI 2001 No 3765).
The case was struck out following a friendly settlement in which Pounds 242 was to be paid to the applicant for any non-pecuniary damage and Pounds 25,000 for costs and expenses.
European Court of Human Rights
Before L Wildhaber, President and Judges E Palm, L Ferrari Bravo, G Jorundsson, G Ress, I Cabral Barreto, J-P Costa, W Fuhrmann, K Jungwiert, M Fischbach, N Vajic, J Hedigan, W Thomassen, M Tsatsa-Nikolovska, T Pantiru, K Traja and ad hoc Judge Sir John Freeland
Deputy Registrar: M de Boer-Buquicchio
Human rights - Gibraltar - European Parliament - UK has duty to secure free election
Legislation which emanated from the European Community forms part of the legislation in Gibraltar and the United Kingdom was responsible for securing the right to free elections regardless of whether the elections were domestic or to the European Parliament.
In so determining, the European Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial