CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 juin 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 }    Application No. 14558/89 by R.M. against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 June 1990, the following members being present :           MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President              J.A. FROWEIN              F. ERMACORA              G. SPERDUTI              E. BUSUTTIL              G. JÖRUNDSSON              A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK              A. WEITZEL              J.C. SOYER              H. DANELIUS              G. BATLINER         Sir   Basil HALL         MM.   F. MARTINEZ              C.L. ROZAKIS         Mrs.   J. LIDDY         MM. L. LOUCAIDES             J.C. GEUS           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 20 January 1989 by R.M. against the United Kingdom and registered on 30 January 1990 under fule No. 14558/89 ;           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 1955 and resident in Cardiff.   He is represented by Mrs. Mary Minton, a solicitor practising in Cardiff.   The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           The applicant cohabited for a number of years with Maria Hazam, who gave birth to three children R (born on 22 July 1976), F (born on 4 July 1979) and I (born on 19 March 1981) of whom the applicant is the father.           In 1982, the applicant returned for family reasons to Yemen, where he stayed for 2 1/2 years.   He continued to keep in touch with his family in the United Kingdom, having the intention to return as soon as he was able.           On 29 July 1982, Maria Hazam placed the three children in the voluntary care of South Glamorgan County Council (hereafter the local authority) on the ground that she was unable to cope.           On 29 December 1982, Maria Hazam discharged R from care.           On 3 November 1983, the local authority assumed parental rights over F and I pursuant to a resolution made under section 3 of the Child Care Act 1980.           The applicant returned to the United Kingdom in May 1984 and discovered F and I were in care and Maria Hazam living with another man.   He was able to visit F and I in the company of Maria Hazam but was not allowed access on his own.           On 19 August 1984, the local authority decided to terminate Maria Hazam's access to F and I.           On 11 March 1985, the applicant married another woman Deborah Jane Davey.   In May 1985, the applicant's solicitors requested the local authority to give access to F and I for the applicant and his wife.           In or about July 1985, R was transferred by Maria Hazam into the care of control of the applicant and his wife.           The applicant and his wife were granted access to F and I from October 1985.   Access was terminated however by the local authority in January 1986 after nine access visits on their decision to place the children for adoption.           On 22 June 1986, the applicant and his wife had a child S.           On 4 September 1986, the applicant applied for legal custody and access to F and I under sections 9 and 14 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971.   On 20 March 1987, the County Court granted interim access to the applicant and directed a report to be compiled by the Court Welfare Officer.           On 20 May 1987, the Court of Appeal allowed the local authority's appeal against the interim access order, which was set aside.   The Court refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.           The proceedings were transferred to the High Court.   On 30 July 1987, the High Court dismissed the applicant's application but certified a point of law of general public importance and gave leave to apply to the House of Lords.           In a report dated 25 January 1988, the Court Welfare Officer found that the local authority had failed to support or prepare the applicant and his wife in the period of access visits and that it had had little regard for the problems experienced by the applicant and his wife.   The report concluded that the applicant wasd genuinely concerned about the children, had coped very well with R who had lived in his home since July 1983 and there was nothing to be repeated to the court which should prevent the applicant from fulfilling his obligation as a father to F and I.           On 14 March 1988, the House of Lords gave leave to appeal both the decision of the Court of Appeal of 20 May 1987 and the decision of the High Court of 30 July 1987.           On 28 July 1988, the House of Lords dismissed both appeals. It held that although the courts had jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's application for access and custody, they were bound by reason of the principles laid down in A v.   Liverpool City Council (1982 AC 363) and Re M (a minor), 1985 AC 791) to exercise their discretion to dismiss the application.           In November 1988, the local authority discussed with F and I the possibility of living with the applicant.   In view of the enthusiastic response, and after a period of preparation (including a 3 week stay over Christmas) F and I went to live withe the applicant on 10 February 1989.   The children remain the subject of a resolution under section 3 of the Child Care Act 1980 taken by the local authority to assume the parental rights and duties of their mother. The local authority continues to supervise the placement of the children with the applicant.   COMPLAINTS   1.       The applicant complains of being unable to have a hearing on the merits of his claim for access or custody before the English courts, since the courts are bound not to intervene in matters within the discretion of the local authority.   He invokes Article 6 of the Convention.   2.       The applicant also complains of an interference with his right to respect for his family life, since the English legal system affords no machinery whereby he can gain access or custody.   He invokes Article 8 of the Convention in this respect.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 20 January 1989 and registered on 30 January 1989.           On 13 April 1989, the Commission decided to bring the applicaiton to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit observations on its admissibility and merits pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.           The respondent Government submitted their observations on 20 June 1989 and the applicant submittted his observations in reply on 18 July 1989.   The respondent Government submitted supplementary observations on 6 November 1989.           On 6 February 1990, the Commission decided to invite the parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.           On 17 April 1990, the respondent Government informed the Commission that they had made proposals to the applicant to settle the case in light of the change in legislation after 1 April 1989.           On 1 June 1990, the respondent Government informed the Commission that the parties had agreed to settle the case on the basis of the payment of £ 4,000 and payment of legal expenses. On 6 June 1990, the applicant's solicitor confirmed the settlement and stated that the applicant withdrew the application.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission notes that the children have been living with the applicant since February 1989 under the supervision of the local authority and that on 1 April 1989 the Family Law Act 1987 came into force providing that a father of a child born out of wedlock could apply for a parental rights order, giving him the same status as married parents and standing to apply to the courts for, inter alia, discharge of a care order or on termination of access.           The Commission further notes that the parties have agreed to settle the case on the basis of the payment of £ 4,000 and legal expenses and that the applicant accordingly wishes to withdraw his application.           In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application before the Commission since the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) (Art. 30-1-a) and (b) (Art. 30-1-b) of the Convention.   The Commission further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require that the Commission continue its examination.           It follows that the application shall be struck off the list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (Art. 30-1) 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)