CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 14 mai 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  Application No. 10812/84   D.   against   the Federal Republic of Germany             REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 14 May 1987)       - i -   11295/84         TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                Page               INTRODUCTION .................................      1             PART I   :   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............      3             PART II :   SOLUTION REACHED ..................      4     &SINTRODUCTION&_         1.       This Report relates to Application No. 10812/84 introduced by the applicant against the Federal Republic of Germany on 23 January 1984 under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.   The application was registered on 9 February 1984.           The applicant was represented first by Dr.   H.J. Rust and, since 18 April 1986, by Mrs.   E. Scharsich, a lawyer practising in Berlin.           The Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs.   I. Maier, Ministerialdirigentin in the Federal Ministry of Justice.   2.       On 11 July 1985 the European Commission of Human Rights declared admissible the applicant's complaints insofar as they concerned the manner in which her son was taken away from his school in Berlin, the placement of her son in a West German home and the fact that his address was not disclosed to the applicant.   The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.*   The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 of the Convention which provides as follows :             "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition         referred to it :           (a) it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,         undertake together with the representatives of the parties an         examination of the petition and, if need be, an         investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States         concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities, after an         exchange of views with the Commission;           (b) it shall place itself at the disposal of the parties         concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of         the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as         defined in this Convention."           __________________           *    This decision is public and can be obtained from the             Commission's Secretary.   3.       The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 14 May 1987 it adopted this Report which, in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.           The following members of the Commission were present when the Report was adopted :                       MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                         G. SPERDUTI                         J.A. FROWEIN                         M.A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES                         G. TENEKIDES                         S. TRECHSEL                         B. KIERNAN                         A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                         A. WEITZEL                         J.C. SOYER                         H.G. SCHERMERS                         H. DANELIUS                         G. BATLINER                         H. VANDENBERGHE                     Mrs G.H. THUNE                     Sir Basil HALL                     Mr.   F. MARTINEZ     &SPART I&_     STATEMENT OF THE FACTS     4.       The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1944.   She resides in Berlin (West).   She has a son born in 1976.   5.       The application originated in the transfer of custody over the applicant's son to the Berlin Youth Office.   6.       Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that her son has been placed under statutory guardianship and that he was taken away from his school and brought to a West German children's home the address of which was not communicated to her.   She also complained under Article 6 para. 1 of the various court decisions.   7.       On 2 October 1984 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   The Government's observations were submitted on 4 and 17 December 1984 and the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 4 February 1985.   8.       Legal aid was granted to the applicant under the Addendum to the Commission's Rules of Procedure on 14 December 1984.   9.       On 11 July 1985 the Commission, having regard to Article 8 of the Convention, declared admissible the application insofar as it concerned the manner in which the applicant's son was taken away from his school in Berlin, his placement in a West German home and the fact that his address was not disclosed to the applicant.   The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   &SPART II&_     SOLUTION REACHED     10.      Following its decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   11.      In accordance with the usual practice the Commission's Secretary contacted the parties in this context and both sides submitted proposals for such a settlement in July 1986.   Subsequently, further letters were exchanged between the parties and the Commission's Secretary.   Finally the Commission called a meeting of the parties which took place in Berlin on 3 April 1987.   The meeting was presided by the Commission's delegate, Mr.   J.A. Frowein, who was assisted by the Secretary and Mr.   M. Villiger, a member of the Secretariat.   The Government was represented by its Agent, Mrs.   I. Maier, assisted by a member of the competent Berlin Youth Office.   The applicant was represented by her lawyer, Mrs.   E. Scharsich.   She was herself present during part of the discussions.   12.      In a letter dated 5 May 1987 the Agent of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany informed the Commission that her Government accepts a friendly settlement in the case in the following terms:           <Erklärung der Regierung>&U**)           "In Weiterführung und zur Konsolidierung der bereits         zwischen der Personensorgerechtspflegerin des Kindes         M.D., Stadtvormund Frau Y., Bezirksamt ... von Berlin,         und Frau D. getroffenen Regelung über die bisherigen         Besuche bei ihrem Sohn M.D. in E. und im N.-Heim,         Aussenstelle K. sollen diese Besuche künftig in dem         Umfang stattfinden, der der Entwicklung und Erziehung         von M.D. förderlich ist unter der Voraussetzung, dass         er diese Besuche gut verträgt.   Die Kosten der Besuche         werden vom Bezirksamt ... nach Massgabe seiner         Sozialhilfepraxis übernommen.           M. darf seine Mutter an jedem 2.   Wochenende auf         Kosten des Heimes bzw. des Bezirksamts ... anrufen.         Der Anruf erfolgt zum Wochenendtarif und soll 15 bis 20         Minuten nicht überschreiten.   Frau Y. wird die Erzieher         bitten, M. zu diesen Telefongesprächen anzuhalten.   Frau         D. kann sich weiterhin einmal monatlich telefonisch bei         der Heimleitung nach dem Befinden M.s erkundigen.   Falls         besonderer Anlass besteht, wird Frau D. sofort von der         Heimleitung verständigt.   _______________   **) The names stated have been abbreviated.           Durch die vorbezeichneten Regelungen der Kontaktmöglichkeiten         zwischen Mutter und Kind werden die gesetzlichen Befugnisse         des Vormundschaftsgerichts nicht berührt."           <Translation:>           "Further to and in continuation of the arrangements         already made between the Municipal Guardian, Mrs.   Y., of         the Berlin ...   District Office, and Mrs.   D. concerning the         visits so far to her son M.D. in E. and in the K. branch         of the N.-Heim, these visits shall be continued in future         to such an extent as may be conducive to the development         and upbringing of M.D. and provided that he reacts well         to these visits.   The Berlin ...   District Office will         meet the expenses for the visits in accordance with its         usual practice in social assistance matters.           M. shall be allowed to telephone his mother every         fortnight at the expenses of the home or of the ...         District Office.   The telephone call shall be made at the         weekend rate and shall not exceed 15 to 20 minutes.         Mrs.   Y. will ask the educators to see that M. makes         these telephone calls.   Mrs.   D. may continue to telephone         the office of the home once a month to inquire about M.'s         health.   Should there be any special cause for concern,         Mrs.   D. shall immediately be informed by the head office         of the home.           The statutory competences of the Guardianship Court will         not be affected by the above-mentioned regulations of         the possibilities of contact between the mother and the         child."   13.      On 12 May 1987 the applicant's representative made the following declaration:           <Erklärung der Beschwerdeführerin>&U**)           "Die Beschwerdeführerin verpflichtet sich, im Interesse des         Kindes und seiner gesunden Entwicklung und ungestörten         Erziehung mit der Personensorgerechtspflegerin Frau Y.,         der Heimleitung und den M. betreuenden Erziehern         zusammenzuarbeiten, deren Ratschläge zu beachten und die         Durchführung der Besuche jeweils rechtzeitig mit der         Personensorgerechtspflegerin Frau Y., zu besprechen.   Sie         wird im persönlichen Kontakt mit M. darauf achten, dass er         nicht beunruhigt wird.           Im Hinblick auf die Erklärung unter Ziffer 11 erklärt die Beschwerdeführerin ihre Beschwerde Nr.Bundesrepublik Deutschland für erledigt.           <Translation:>           "The applicant undertakes to cooperate, in the interests of         the child and his healthy development and untroubled         upbringing, with the Municipal Guardian, Mrs.   Y., the         management of the home and the educators looking after M.,         to follow their advice and to discuss at an early stage with         the Municipal Guardian, Mrs.   Y., any visits the         applicant wishes to make.   In her personal contact with M.         the applicant will be careful not to disturb him         emotionally.           Having regard to the declaration made under para. 11, the         applicant hereby declares that she considers as settled the         case which is the subject of her application No. 10812/84         against the Federal Republic of Germany."   14.      At its session on 14 May 1987 the Commission found from the above statements that the parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of settlement.   The Commission therefore concluded, having regard to Article 28 (b) of the Convention, that a friendly settlement of the present application had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.     Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission              (H. C. KRÜGER)                             (C.A. NØRGAARD)