Search
document

Document text Analytics

WILLS v. United Kingdom

Doc ref: 20609/92 • ECHR ID: 001-45679

Document date: May 17, 1994

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

WILLS v. United Kingdom

Doc ref: 20609/92 • ECHR ID: 001-45679

Document date: May 17, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 20609/92

Peter Wills

against

the United Kingdom

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 17 May 1994)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ......................... 2

PART II: SOLUTION REACHED ............................... 4

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under Article

25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by Peter Wills against

the United Kingdom on 20 May 1992. It was registered on

11 September 1992 under file No. 20609/92.

The applicant represented himself before the Commission. The

respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Martin Eaton

of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

2. On 13 October 1993 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the

application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under

Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition

referred to it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake

together with the representatives of the parties an examination

of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the

effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all

necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the

Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the

parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement

of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined

in this Convention."

3. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached

a friendly settlement of the case and on 17 May 1994 adopted this

Report which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention,

is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution

reached.

4. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

MM. A. WEITZEL, President

C.L. ROZAKIS

F. ERMACORA

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

E. KONSTANTINOV

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

5. The applicant is a British citizen born in 1936 and resident in

Weymouth.

6. On 5 March 1988, the girlfriend (later the wife) of the

applicant's younger son gave birth to twins J. and N..

7. In April 1988, J. suffered a broken arm. On 1 October 1988, N.

was taken to hospital by her mother and found to have suffered a skull

fracture. On 6 October 1988, both parents were arrested. On

7 October 1988, Place of Safety Orders were obtained by the Social

Services of the local authority in respect of the children.

8. A full care order was made on 13 February 1989 and the Social

Services decided that the twins should be placed for adoption.

9. From January to July 1990, the Social Services stayed the

adoption procedure pending consideration first of the other

alternatives of placing the twins with the paternal grandparents or

with the natural parents and then in view of an attempt at

rehabilitation with the mother. The rehabilitation programme however

was overruled by the Director and/ or Deputy Director of the Social

Services. The parents and grandparents were informed in December 1990

that rehabilitation was no longer planned and an application was made

for a freeing for adoption order.

10. On 23 March 1991, the parents issued an application seeking a

discharge of the care orders.

11. On 3 April 1991, the local authority placed the twins with the

prospective adopters.

12. In the proceedings before the High Court, the parents'

application to discharge the care orders was heard at the same time as

the application by the local authority to terminate access by the

parents and the paternal grandparents.

13. In his judgment of 18 December 1991, the judge criticised the

local authority for the unacceptable and avoidable delay which had

taken place in the case. Since however in the eight months with the

prospective adopters the twins had made dramatic developmental progress

and were happy and secure, he found that he had no alternative but to

find that the welfare of the children required that they remain with

the prospective adopters. He accordingly refused to discharge the care

orders. The applicant was granted indirect contact, namely, the

exchange of photographs and cards on at least two occasions per annum.

14. The applicant complained to the Commission that he had been

deprived of a normal relationship with his grandchildren. He complained

in particular of the length of time taken by the local authority to

deal with the case and also alleged that the local authority failed to

give proper consideration to the question of rehabilitation with

himself and his wife.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

15. Following its decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission (First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the

parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance

with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties

to submit any proposals they wished to make.

16. In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on

the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the

possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

17. Between October 1993 and February 1994 there were discussions

between the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.

18. On 8 March 1994, the Commission considered the state of

proceedings of the case. In view of the parties' apparent willingness

to reach a friendly settlement, the Commission made proposals for the

consideration of the parties. As a result of these negotiations, the

parties reached agreement in the terms set out below.

19. By letter dated 6 April 1994, the Government agreed to settle the

the case on the basis of an ex gratia payment to the applicant of

£ 5000 and payment of £ 3000 in respect of costs, the total payment

being made in full and final settlement of the applicant's claims in

the application.

20. In his letter which reached the Commission on 18 April 1994, the

applicant accepted the proposed terms and agreed formally to withdraw

his application.

21. At its session on 17 May 1994, the Commission found that the

parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It

further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the

Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured

on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

22. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant