British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 14858/03 [2007] ECHR 387 (10 May 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/387.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 387
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 14858/03)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
10
May 2007
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of C. v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr J. Casadevall,
President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr S.
Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović,
Mr J.
Šikuta,
Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L.
Early, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in
private on 14 December 2004 and on 12 April 2007.
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned
date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 14858/03) against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a British
national, C. (“the applicant”), on 2 May 2003. The
President of the Chamber acceded to the applicant's request not to
have his name disclosed (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
The
applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by
Sitters and Co, solicitors practising in Plymouth. The United Kingdom
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Mr J. Grainger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.
The
applicant complained under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention of
the removal of his children and their freeing for adoption.
On
14 December 2004, after obtaining the parties' observations, the
Court declared the application admissible in so far as these
complaints are concerned. Further complaints of the applicant were
declared inadmissible on the same date.
On
4 January 2005 after an exchange of correspondence, the Registrar
suggested to the parties that they should attempt to reach a friendly
settlement within the meaning of Article 38 § 1 (b) of the
Convention. On 6 December 2006 and 11 January 2007 the Government and
the applicant respectively submitted formal declarations accepting a
friendly settlement of the case.
THE FACTS
The
applicant was born in 1957 and is resident in Plymouth.
The
applicant cohabited with S. (the “mother”), who had two
children from other relationships: AD born in 1985 and A. born in
1993. A.'s father had died and the applicant always treated her as if
she was his natural child. He and the mother had two children
together: N. born in 1994 and Z. born in 1998.
The
family had a long history of social work involvement from 1995. These
concerns centred on the mother's mental health (she was diagnosed as
having a bipolar disorder), the chaotic, disorganised state of the
home; the parents' inability adequately to provide consistent care in
light of these factors; and the parents' inability to co-operate with
professionals.
On
23 January 1998, CCC the local authority obtained Interim Care Orders
in respect of A. and N.
In
March 1999, the hearing on the final care order application took
place. On the first day, the parties reached agreement. “Amended
Threshold Criteria” were admitted by the parents as providing
the necessary basis in domestic law for implementing care measures to
protect the children from harm. The Care Plan was amended. The
children were to remain at home, with provision of considerable
support e.g. social workers to visit the family twice weekly
to work on parenting issues and support children; family aide to
visit weekly to take out A. and N.; community psychiatric nurse to
visit twice weekly; local authority to assist with transport to
school.
On
8 March 1999, Care Orders were made in respect of A., N. and Z.
On
9 July 2001, the mother and children were recorded as being provided
with emergency bed and breakfast following a domestic violence
incident.
On
8 November 2001, the children were removed.
On
17 April 2002, the Adoption Panel recommended adoption as being in
the children's best interests.
On
24 September 2002, the applicant made application under the Human
Rights Act 1998 seeking the children's return home.
The
local authority made application for orders to free the children for
adoption. It claimed that it had found prospective adopters approved
by the Adoption Panel on 1 May 2002.
On
29 November 2002, after an eight-day hearing, the High Court
dismissed the application for discharge of the Care Orders, dismissed
the applicant's application under the Human Rights Act 1998 and
granted the local authority the power to terminate contact with the
applicant. It also granted the applications to free the children for
adoption.
The
judge refused leave to appeal. On 5 December 2002, the applicant's
renewed application to the Court of Appeal was refused.
The
parents were told that the children were introduced to the
prospective adopters on 7 December 2002 and placed in the adoptive
home on 20 December 2002.
On
18 December 2002, the applicant and the mother separated.
On
5 March 2003, the local authority informed the applicant that the
placement broke down on 15 January 2003. The children were
transferred to new foster carers.
On
8 July 2003, the High Court granted permission to the guardian to
apply for a parenting assessment of the applicant and the mother to
be undertaken by an independent social worker, Ms T.
On
24 September 2003, Ms T. reported to the court, recommending contact
between the children and both parents.
On
10 November 2003, the applicant was granted permission to apply for
contact.
On
1 December 2003, the applicant issued an application to revoke the
freeing orders, as one year had now expired from the date the orders
were made and such application was now possible.
On
12 December 2003, the court ordered direct contact to take place on
three occasions. The applicant was granted permission to apply for
residence orders.
On
17 December 2003, the first contact visit took place.
On
8 June 2004, the High Court judge ruled on outstanding applications.
The orders freeing for adoption were revoked by consent and an
interim care order was made in favour of the local authority with a
care plan reuniting the applicant and the children.
THE LAW
On
6 December 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the
Government:
“I, John Grainger, Agent of the Government of the
United Kingdom, declare that the Government of the United Kingdom
offer to pay 40,000 euros to the three children to be held on trust
by the Family Welfare Association (FWA) on the terms set out in my
letter of 14 November 2006 and will also pay the applicants'
legal representatives the sum of GBP 15,000 plus VAT in respect of
the legal costs with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the
above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human
Rights.
These sums, which are to cover any pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, are inclusive of
any taxes that may be applicable. They will be payable within three
months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the
Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on
Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the
said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple
interest on them, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a
rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank
during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment
will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government further undertake not to request that the
case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of
the Convention.”
On
11 January 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed
by the applicant's representatives:
“Sitters & Co. Solicitors note that the
Government of' the United Kingdom are prepared to pay 40,000 euros to
the three children to be held on trust by the Family Welfare
Association (FWA) on the terms set out in their letter of 14 November
2006 and will also pay the applicants' legal representatives the sum
of GBP l5,000 plus VAT in respect of the legal costs with a view to
securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending
before the European Court of Human Rights.
These sums, which are to cover any pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, are inclusive of
any taxes that may be applicable. They will be payable within three
months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the
Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on
Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months
until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European
Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points,
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims
against the United Kingdom in respect of the facts giving rise to
this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution
of the case.
We further undertake not to request that the case be
referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the
Convention after delivery of the Court's judgment."
The
Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties
(Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement
is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or
its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention
and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
Accordingly,
the case should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the case out of the list.
Takes note of the parties' undertaking not to
request a rehearing of the case before the Grand Chamber.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 May 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
