Search
document

Document text Analytics

McMICHAEL v. the UNITED KINGDOMPARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. LIDDY

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: August 31, 1993

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

McMICHAEL v. the UNITED KINGDOMPARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. LIDDY

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: August 31, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. LIDDY

joined by Mr. J. C. SOYER

The majority of the Commission has concluded that there was no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 in relation to the first applicant who

complained that he was unable to see the confidential reports and

documents submitted in the proceedings before the children's hearings.

I have reached a different conclusion because I cannot see how this

issue can be distinguished, in its essentials, from the issues under

Article 6 para. 1 in the case of Keegan v. Ireland ( No. 16969/90,

Comm. Report 17.2.93).

The applicant in Keegan v. Ireland had no standing before the

Adoption Board because he had not obtained a court order appointing him

guardian of a child. The first applicant in the present case had no

standing before the Children's Hearings, dealing with questions of

access, because he had not obtained a parental rights order. It cannot

be assumed that he would have been successful had he applied for one.

In Keegan v. Ireland there was no dispute as to whether the applicant

was the father of the child. In the present case there was no dispute

after 18 February 1988 as to whether the applicant was the father of

the child.

If the Commission was right in its unanimous conclusion in Keegan

v. Ireland that there was a violation of Article 6 para. 1, then it

must be the case that there is also a violation of the first

applicant's rights under that provision in the present case, at least

in the period following 18 February 1988.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

________________________________________________________________

11.10.90 Introduction of the application

10.4.90 Registration of the application

Examination of admissibility

03.12.90 Commission's decision to invite the parties to submit

observations on the admissibility and merits

16.05.91 Government's observations

05.08.91 Applicants' reply

25.09.91 Applicants' further comments

07.04.92 Commission's decision to hold an oral hearing

23.07.92 Commission's grant of legal aid

08.12.91 Hearing on the admissibility and merits

08.12.92 Commission's decision to declare the application

partly admissible, partly inadmissible

Examination of the merits

08.12.92 Commission's deliberations on the merits

27.01.93 Applicants' submissions on the merits

03.04.93 Consideration of the state of proceedings

25.05.93 Government's submissions on the merits

31.08.93 Commission's deliberations on the merits, final votes

and adoption of the Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant