Lexploria

Application No. 11240/84

Frank CAMPBELL

against

THE UNITED KINGDOM

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 13 May 1988)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............................... 3

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

&SINTRODUCTION&-

1. This Report relates to Application No. 11240/84 introduced by

Frank Campbell against the United Kingdom on 9 August 1984 under

Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms. The application was registered on 13 November

1984. The applicant was represented by Ms. Susan Hulton, lawyer,

London. The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their

Agent, Mr. Ian Hendry, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

2. On 12 December 1987, the European Commission of Human Rights

declared admissible the applicant's complaints under Articles 6, 8 and

13 of the Convention concerning the restriction on his contact with

his son, the procedure for deciding upon access to his son, and the

question of an effective remedy before a national authority*. The

Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 of

the Convention which provides as follows:

"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 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 found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and on 13 May 1988 it adopted this Report

which, in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention, is confined to

a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.

_______

* This decision is public and can be obtained from the Commission's

Secretary.

4. The following members of the Commission were present when the

Report was adopted:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

J. A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mr. C. L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

&SPART I&-

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

5. The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen, born in 1936. He

resides in London.

6. On 22 November 1982 a care order was made in respect of the

applicant's son, born in 1971, under Section 1 (2)(e) of the Children

and Young Persons Act 1969. Under the care order the applicant's

child was taken into the care of the local education authority.

Following the order the local authority made arrangements for access

visits by the applicant and his wife on weekdays with the son visiting

his parents at their home on Saturdays and Sundays.

7. Subsequently, difficulties arose in the contact between the

applicant and his son and through the social authorities the applicant

was informed that only pre-arranged visits with his son would be

offered in the future, supervised by the responsible social workers.

8. The local authority held a review of the case on 1 April 1985

as a result of which it was agreed that quarterly visits to the

applicant and his wife should be offered with the acquiescence of their

son. The applicant and his wife did not attend or participate in the

review of the case. Nor were they informed of the reasons for the

decision taken. They subsequently conveyed to the local authority the

wish that they be allowed weekly and monthly visits but in September

1985 the applicant was informed that a visit every three months seemed

to offer benefits to all concerned.

9. Before the Commission the applicant complained that the

decision of the local authority to restrict his contact with his son

and the manner in which that decision was made, violated his right to

respect for his family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.

He furthermore complained that the procedure for deciding upon access

to his son was not in conformity with Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention. Finally, the applicant complained that he did not have an

effective remedy before a national authority, as required by Article

13 of the Convention, in respect of his complaint that the decision of

the local authority interfered with his right to respect for his

family life.

10. On 1 July 1985 the Commission decided to bring the application

to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to

submit written observations on the admissibility and merits. The

Government's observations were submitted on 29 October 1985 and the

applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 22 March 1986.

Legal aid was granted to the applicant under the Addendum to the

Commission's Rules of Procedure on 7 November 1985.

11. On 12 December 1987 the Commission declared the applicant's

complaints admissible.

&SPART II&-

SOLUTION REACHED

12. Following its decision on admissibility of the application,

the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a

view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28

(b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals

they wished to make.

13. In accordance with its usual practice, the Commission

instructed its Secretary to contact the parties for this purpose.

Following an exchange of letters channelled through the Commission,

the Agent of the Government, on 12 May 1988, addressed a letter

to the Commission containing the following offer:

"1. The Government confirm their intention to introduce legislation

along the lines of the White Paper on 'The Law of Child Care and

Family Services' (Cm. 62) as soon as the Parliamentary timetable

allows.

2. The Government will make an ex gratia payment of

£5,000 to the applicant.

3. The Government will also pay the applicant's legal costs which

have been actually incurred, necessarily incurred and are reasonable

as to quantum."

14. On 12 May 1988 the applicant's representative sent the

following letter to the Commission:

"We have taken note of the offer from the United Kingdom Government,

contained in its telefax letter of 12 May 1988 to the Commission,

concerning the terms of a friendly settlement in the above case.

We are writing to accept this offer on behalf of the applicant,

Mr. Campbell."

15. At its session on 13 May 1988 the Commission found from the

above communications that the parties had reached agreement regarding

the terms of a settlement. It further found, having regard to Article

28 (b) of the Convention, that a friendly settlement of the present

application had been secured on the basis of respect for human rights

as defined in the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

CAMPBELL v. the UNITED KINGDOM

CAMPBELL v. the UNITED KINGDOM