CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 13 mai 1988

.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. 11240/84   Frank CAMPBELL   against   THE UNITED KINGDOM               REPORT OF THE COMMISSION     (adopted on   13 May 1988)         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. 11240/84 introduced by Frank Campbell against the United Kingdom on 9 August 1984 under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.   The application was registered on 13 November 1984.           The applicant was represented by Ms.   Susan Hulton, lawyer, London.   The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Ian Hendry, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   2.       On 12 December 1987, the European Commission of Human Rights declared admissible the applicant's complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention concerning the restriction on his contact with his son, the procedure for deciding upon access to his son, and the question of an effective remedy before a national authority*.    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."   3.       The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 13 May 1988 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.       _______ * This decision is public and can be obtained from the Commission's Secretary.   4.       The following members of the Commission were present when the Report was adopted:                   MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J. A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   F. MARTINEZ              Mr.   C. L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY   &SPART I&-   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   5.       The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen, born in 1936.   He resides in London.   6.       On 22 November 1982 a care order was made in respect of the applicant's son, born in 1971, under Section 1 (2)(e) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.   Under the care order the applicant's child was taken into the care of the local education authority. Following the order the local authority made arrangements for access visits by the applicant and his wife on weekdays with the son visiting his parents at their home on Saturdays and Sundays.   7.       Subsequently, difficulties arose in the contact between the applicant and his son and through the social authorities the applicant was informed that only pre-arranged visits with his son would be offered in the future, supervised by the responsible social workers.   8.       The local authority held a review of the case on 1 April 1985 as a result of which it was agreed that quarterly visits to the applicant and his wife should be offered with the acquiescence of their son.   The applicant and his wife did not attend or participate in the review of the case.   Nor were they informed of the reasons for the decision taken.   They subsequently conveyed to the local authority the wish that they be allowed weekly and monthly visits but in September 1985 the applicant was informed that a visit every three months seemed to offer benefits to all concerned.   9.       Before the Commission the applicant complained that the decision of the local authority to restrict his contact with his son and the manner in which that decision was made, violated his right to respect for his family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. He furthermore complained that the procedure for deciding upon access to his son was not in conformity with Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   Finally, the applicant complained that he did not have an effective remedy before a national authority, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of his complaint that the decision of the local authority interfered with his right to respect for his family life.   10.      On 1 July 1985 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.   The Government's observations were submitted on 29 October 1985 and the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 22 March 1986. Legal aid was granted to the applicant under the Addendum to the Commission's Rules of Procedure on 7 November 1985.   11.      On 12 December 1987 the Commission declared the applicant's complaints admissible.   &SPART II&-     SOLUTION REACHED   12.      Following its decision on 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.   13.      In accordance with its usual practice, the Commission instructed its Secretary to contact the parties for this purpose. Following an exchange of letters channelled through the Commission, the Agent of the Government, on 12 May 1988, addressed a letter to the Commission containing the following offer:   "1.     The Government confirm their intention to introduce legislation along the lines of the White Paper on 'The Law of Child Care and Family Services' (Cm. 62) as soon as the Parliamentary timetable allows.   2.      The Government will make an ex gratia payment of £5,000 to the applicant.   3.      The Government will also pay the applicant's legal costs which have been actually incurred, necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum."   14.      On 12 May 1988 the applicant's representative sent the following letter to the Commission:   "We have taken note of the offer from the United Kingdom Government, contained in its telefax letter of 12 May 1988 to the Commission, concerning the terms of a friendly settlement in the above case.   We are writing to accept this offer on behalf of the applicant, Mr.   Campbell."   15.      At its session on 13 May 1988 the Commission found from the above communications that the parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.   It further found, 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)