Resolution CM/ ResDH (2012)6 6 [1]

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

A.D and O.D against the United Kingdom

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”) [2] ,

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

A.D and O.D (28680/06)

16/03/2010

16/06/2010

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;

Having invited the authorities of the respondent State to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;

Having, in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see action report, document DH ‑ DD( 2 012)218E );

Having noted that the respondent State paid the a p plicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

DECLARES, that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Action Report

AD and OD v the United Kingdom (application no. 28680/06; judgment final on 16/03/2010) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 2 November 2011

Case Summary

1. Case description:

- The case concerns the violation of the right of the applicants (a mother and son) to respect for their family and private life (violation of Article 8) on account of their treatment by local authority social services, in that:

- they were relocated to a family assessment centre without the correct assessment being carried out during their stay at the centre;

- the second applicant was placed in foster care due to the lack of a correct assessment; and

- there was an unreasonable delay in returning the second applicant to his family once the correct assessment had been made

(The care proceedings commenced in 1997 and the subsequent negligence proceedings against the local authority concluded in 2003.)

- The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 in relation to both applicants and Article 13 combined with Article 8 in relation to the first applicant only.

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

- The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence previously submitted.

3. Individual measures:

- The Government considers no further individual measures are required beyond the payment of just satisfaction because the case concerned the decisions of professionals made on the particular facts of the case and information available to them at the time. The Children Act 1989 and guidance requires the local authority to take action if they suspect that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The second applicant was subsequently returned to his family and so there was no on-going breach. As noted below statutory guidance in relation to child protection and care planning has been recently revised.

General Measures

4. General measures – Article 8:

- The Government has taken the following general measures:

- There are a number of publications that deal with the issues highlighted in this case. Revised statutory guidance ‘ Working Together to Safeguard Children ’ was issued in both 2006 and 2010. Chapter 5 of the guidance (managing individual cases) provides advice on what should happen if somebody has concerns about the welfare of a child and in particular, has concerns that a child may be suffering, or is at risk of suffering harm. It sets out the assessment processes to be followed when there are such concerns and emphasises the importance of evidence based decisions being taken by the local authority to safeguard and promote a child ’ s welfare.

The publication can be viewed at: https://www.education.go v .uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-00305-2010

- Chapter 3 (care and supervision orders) of the revised Volume I of The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations on Court Orders revised and published in 2008 sets out the process which should be followed before and after care proceedings under section 31 of that Act. Paragraphs 3.49 – 3.52 focus on the power of the Court to give any directions it considers appropriate about medical or psychiatric examination or other necessary assessment of a child when an interim order is made. The purpose of these assessments is to provide the court with the information required to make its decisions.

The publication can be viewed at: https://www.educati o n.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-10500-2008

- Since 2002 residential family centres (defined in section 4(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 as establishments which provides accommodation for children and their parents at which the parents ’ capacity to respond to the children ’ s needs and to safeguard their welfare is monitored or assessed and at which the parents are given such advice, guidance or counselling as is considered necessary) must be registered and inspected under the provisions of that Act.

5. General Measures – Article 13

The Government considers it is unnecessary to take further steps to disseminate the judgment because the events in question in these cases pre-date the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998: claims in relation to events of a similar nature which occurred after 1 October 2000 can be brought in the UK under this Act

6. Publication & Dissemination:

The case has been reported by a range of publishers of law reports in hard copy and online, for example: http://www.ba i lii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1505.html

It is also reported at [2010] ECHR 340, [2010] 2 FLR 1, [2010] Fam Law 580

7. State of execution of judgment:

- The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 11 36 th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies .

[2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec (2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member State s on the improvement of domestic remedies.