R.B. ; A.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Doc ref: 15407/89 • ECHR ID: 001-753
Document date: October 5, 1990
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
Application No. 15407/89
by R.B. and A.B.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 5 October 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 28 July 1989
by R.B. and A.B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 28
August 1989 under file No. 15407/89;
Having regard to:
- the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure
of the Commission;
- the letters of 7 March 1990 and 6 April 1990 from the
respondent Government and the letters of 27 March 1990 and
11 July 1990 from the applicant;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, who are married, were born in 1960 and 1956
and are resident in B. The applicants are represented by
Messrs. D'Angibau and Malim, solicitors practising in Bournemouth.
The facts of the case as submitted by the applicants may be summarised
as follows.
The first applicant has a son D. who was born out of wedlock
to one Mr. H. on 14 June 1979. She was married to the second
applicant on 13 October 1979. They have a son, M., who was born on
24 January 1984.
On 26 November 1986, the two children were placed in a foster
home under a Place of Safety Order and care proceedings were
commenced. The local authority alleged neglect of the children, who
were reported as living in filthy conditions and as being
behaviourally disturbed. On 22 January 1987 the Court made care
orders in respect of the two children. An application for the
discharge of the care order by both applicants was dismissed
on 2 December 1987.
After the making of the care order in January 1987, the first
applicant was granted access to both children once every fortnight.
Three months later it was reduced to once every month. This was soon
reduced to once every six weeks, and subsequently further reduced to
seeing D. four times a year and M. three times a year. She was not
allowed to see the children together with the second applicant, who
was granted access to M.
The second applicant's access to D. and M. was terminated on
17 February 1988. He has applied for legal aid to institute wardship
proceedings in respect of D. The outcome of his application for legal
aid is not yet known. He has also applied to the Juvenile Court for
access to be restored to M. pursuant to section 12C of the Child Care
Act 1980.
COMPLAINTS
1. The first applicant complained that the absence of any right to
apply for an increased access in the absence of its termination
constituted a violation of Article 6 para. 1 and Article 13 of the
Convention. She also complained that restriction of her access with no
recourse to the court for redress violated her right to family life
under Article 8 and Article 12 of the Convention.
2. The second applicant complained that the absence of any
judicial remedy to determine his claim for access to D., his step-son,
constitued a violation of Article 6 para. 1. He further complained
that the absence of any right to apply for access to his step-son when
the child is in public care violated his right to family life under
Articles 8 and 12.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 28 July 1989 and registered
on 28 August 1989.
On 4 December 1989, the Commission decided to bring the
application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite
them to submit observations on its admissibility and merits pursuant
to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.
By letter dated 7 March 1990, the Government informed the
Secretariat that they proposed to settle the case in light of the
changes in legislation - in particular section 34 of the Children Act
1989 which confers on parents the possibility of having all questions
of contact with their children determined by a court. They also
proposed to pay £ 3,000 compensation.
By letter dated 27 March 1990, the applicants' solicitor
agreed to accept the offer and enquired if the Government would also
pay their costs.
By letter dated 6 April 1990, the Government stated that they
were willing to pay the applicants' reasonable costs.
By letter of 11 July 1990, the applicants' solicitor informed
the Secretariat that the case had been settled and could be struck off
the Commission's list of cases.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the parties have agreed to settle
the case in light of the change in legislation, which will allow
parents to have all questions of contact with their children
determined by a court, and on the basis of the payment of £ 3,000 and
legal expenses. The Commission further notes that the applicants
accordingly wish to withdraw their application.
In these circumstances the Commission finds that the
applicants do not intend to pursue their application before the
Commission since the matter has been resolved within the meaning of
Article 30 para. 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention. The Commission
further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the
Convention does not require that the Commission continue its
examination.
It follows that the application shall be struck off the list
of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)