CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 mai 1990

.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 }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 13681/88                       by Eunice HOCKING                       against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 16 May 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 15 March 1988 by Eunice HOCKING against the United Kingdom and registered on 21 March 1988 under file No. 13681/88;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a British citizen born in 1943 and resident in Manchester.   She is represented by Lucas Rogerson, solicitors practising in Ashton-under-Lyne.           The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           In February 1987, the applicant received a visit from Thameside Social Services Department (hereafter the "social services") of Thameside Metropolitan Borough (hereafter the "local authority") who informed her that they had received a report from her daughter's headmaster that her daughter had been sexually abused.   The applicant's daughter, then aged 10, attended a special school, as she had learning difficulties.   She lived at home with the applicant and her elder brother aged 17.   The applicant informed the social services that her son had had a toy fight with his sister and that she had bruised her legs.   Not satisfied with this explanation, the social services arranged for the daughter to be examined by a doctor in the presence of her mother and a representative of the social services. The doctor, after internal examination, found no indication of sexual abuse.   The social services, apparently still not satisfied, arranged for a further examination in a hospital, where it was again found that there was no indication of abuse.           The applicant was very disturbed by the invasion into her private life as a result of the questioning put to her and her son in respect of the allegation.   This apparently was the second time on which the headmaster had made an unfounded allegation in respect of her daughter.   While the applicant accepted that the social services had a duty to investigate the matter, she was concerned that a record of the allegation had been made by the local authority.   Her solicitors requested on her behalf that records of the unfounded allegation be destroyed.   By letter dated 31 March 1987 the Director of the Social Services refused to comply with this request, explaining that it was necessary to keep records of the local authority's actions taken in respect of its statutory obligations and that though allegations may be found to be unsubstantiated, further evidence may come forward later which changes this situation (though he did not suggest this was the case in respect of the applicant).   He also explained that records were kept for five years before being destroyed.   The applicant's solicitors by letter dated 2 June 1987 requested that the local authority inform them of the statutory or legal authority for this policy.   By letter dated 18 June 1987, the local authority replied that legislation only specified the length of time for keeping records concerning adoption or boarding out, but that it was the practice of the Social Services in this instance to keep records for five years.           The applicant applied for legal aid to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of this matter.   Her application was refused by the general committee of the Law Society on 6 October 1987 on the ground that it appeared unreasonable that she receive legal aid in the particular circumstances of the case.   They stated that (1) the decision of the local authority was reasonable and that the Divisional Court would not review it and (2) alternatively, even if judicial review did lie, the matters in question did not justify proceedings at the public expense.   The applicant's appeal to the area committee was refused on 19 November 1987.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that the local authority's files contain information relating to the applicant and her family.   She alleges that the storing of such information and its release to other agencies amount to an interference with her right to respect for her private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention.   Since the local authority admit that there is no legislation pertaining to the keeping of records in respect of allegations of sexual abuse, the applicant submits that they are not acting "in accordance with the law" as required by Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 15 March 1988 and registered on 21 March 1988.           The Commission decided on 7 October 1988 to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints.           The Government submitted observations on 21 April 1989 following two extentions in the time-limit.   The applicant has failed to submit any observations in reply.   On 28 February 1990, the applicant's solicitors were informed by registered letter that, in the absence of any explanation as to their failure to reply to letters from the Secretariat, the Commission might strike the case from its list.   No reply was received.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission notes that the applicant has failed to respond to letters from the Secretariat or to provide observations in reply to the Government.   In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application before the Commission within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.           It further considers that the respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require that the Commission continues its examination.           It follows that the application shall be struck off the list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF         THE LIST OF CASES         Secretary to the Commission        President of the Commission                  (H.C. KRÜGER)                      (C.A. NØRGAARD)