THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application No. 35734/97

by Sarah PHILLIPS [Note1]

against the United Kingdom [Note2]

The European Court of Human Rights ( Section) sitting on 19 January 1999 as a Chamber composed of

Mr J.-P. Costa, President

Mr N. Bratza ,

Mr L. Loucaides ,

Mrs F. Tulkens ,

Mr W. Fuhrmann ,

Mr K. Jungwiert ,

Mr K. Traja ,

with Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar ;

Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 5 December 1996 by Sarah PHILLIPS [Note3] against the United Kingdom and registered on 24 April 1997 under file No. 35734/97;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 28 July 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 11 November 1998;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

CO dp 03/12/1998 9 3 35734/97 05/12/996 Sarah PHILLIPS the United Kindgom 24/04/97 Mr L. LOUCAIDES THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1975, and resident in Hereford. She is represented before the Court by Mr Luke Clements , a solicitor practising in London. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

A. Particular facts of the case

Prior to 1981, the applicant lived with her mother and her stepfather (whose first name is not known to her), as well as her younger brother (born in 1977). In or about 1981, when the applicant was about six years old, she was voluntarily admitted into the care of Hereford and Worcester County Council ("the Council") where she remained for most of her childhood (it appears until she was eighteen years old). She believes that her younger brother was also taken into care around this time. Shortly thereafter, her mother gave birth to another son (a half-brother) who is now believed to be about 17 years old.

When the applicant became eighteen years of age (1993) she wrote two letters to the Council requesting access to her social services file, in the hope of obtaining information about her relatives. One letter was given to a social worker and the other was hand delivered to the Council. She received no reply. She then wrote to the Director of Social Services who permitted her to examine three thin files containing material dating from 1991 to date. At that stage, she was not permitted to see any information prior to 1991.

The applicant then sought advice from a solicitor in 1995. On 11 September 1995 that solicitor wrote to the Council requesting access to all files on the applicant. On 1 December 1995 the Council responded confirming that the process of checking with third parties as regards the release of information was in train. That letter continued as follows:

"With reference to the point you make about the full file being made available, you will no doubt be aware that the Access to Personal Files (Social Services ) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989 No. 206) only takes effect from 1 April 1989. If you know of another authority requiring disclosure prior to that date would you please give me details so that I can seek legal advice about it."

Accordingly, by letter 26 March 1996 the applicant was informed that she would have access to her files dating from 1 April 1989. By letter dated 17 April 1996, the applicant's lawyer queried whether there were any records from 1 April 1989 which would not be included in the files to be disclosed (following, for example, the third party consultation process) and whether the applicant would obtain access to records prior to 1 April 1989. The Council responded by letter dated 24 April 1996 that "all information from 1 April 1989 relating to Sarah personally will be made available to her" and, as regards the pre-April 1989 records, the Council referred to the above-quoted paragraph of their letter of 1 December 1995.

No further information was made available to her about her natural family.

B. Relevant domestic law and Practice

The Access to Personal Files Act 1987 ("the 1987 Act") and the Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations 1989 ("the 1989 Regulations") both entered into force on 1 April 1989 and do not apply to records compiled prior to that date.

1. Records compiled prior to 1 April 1989

The Court of Appeal in Gaskin v. Liverpool Corporation [1980] 1 WLR 1459 held that the High Court, in refusing access to the relevant records, had correctly balanced the public interest in maintaining an efficient child-care system with an individual private interest in obtaining access to the records and that it was not necessary for the court to review the records in question in order to so decide. In 1983  a binding Government Circular was issued - LAC(83)14 - setting out the principles to be applied by local authorities in permitting access to such information. In particular, access to a record was to be permitted if the contributor consented to its disclosure.

2. Records compiled after 1 April 1989

The 1987 Act creates obligations for an authority concerning the accessibility and accuracy of personal information they retain on people, including personal information held for any purpose of the local authorities' social services.

Pursuant to the 1989 Regulations, when an individual applies in writing, pays the appropriate fee and can establish his/her identity, the Council, subject to certain exemptions, must tell the individual whether they hold any information about that person and give access to that information. If that information also relates to another individual, the Council must seek the consent of that other person to disclosure.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant originally complained that because she was in care for most of her childhood she had little or no information in relation to her own life or that of her immediate family.  Accordingly, she alleged that the refusal of access to her full personal records constituted a violation of her rights under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

PROCEDURE

The application was introduced on 5 December 1996 and registered on 24 April 1997.

On 14 January 1998, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.

The Government’s written observations were submitted on 28 July 1998, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.

On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.

On 11 November 1998 the applicant informed the Court that the parties had settled the case in the following terms:

The local authority has agreed to give the applicant access to her pre 1 April 1998 records, subject to third party consents currently being sought, where relevant, and the Government has paid the applicant £7,612.50 in compensation and costs.

THE LAW

The applicant originally complained that, because she was in care for most of her childhood, she has little or no information in relation to her own life or that of her immediate family.  Accordingly, she alleged that the refusal of access to her full personal records held by the local authority constituted a violation of her rights under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, which guarantee the right to respect for family life and effective domestic remedies for Convention claims.

Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:

“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or

(b) the matter has been resolved; ...

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.”

The Court has had regard to the terms of the agreement reached between the applicant and the respondent Government and finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue her petition, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a), and that the matter has been resolved, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b).  It finds no reason within the meaning of the final sentence of Article 37 § 1 which would require it to continue with its examination of the case.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

                            S. DOLLE                                                                       J.P. COSTA

        Registrar President

[Note1] Please check if public or not. If not, put initials only. Name and, in capital letters, surname ; corporative name in capital letters ; no translation of collective names.

[Note2] First letter in capital letters plus the article according to normal speech.

[Note3] In small letters.