CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 octobre 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. 15407/89                       by R.B. and A.B.                       against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 October 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   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 RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                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 28 July 1989 by R.B. and A.B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 28 August 1989 under file No. 15407/89;           Having regard to:      -    the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;      -     the letters of 7 March 1990 and 6 April 1990 from the respondent Government and the letters of 27 March 1990 and 11 July 1990 from the applicant;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicants, who are married, were born in 1960 and 1956 and are resident in B.   The applicants are represented by Messrs.   D'Angibau and Malim, solicitors practising in Bournemouth. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows.           The first applicant has a son D. who was born out of wedlock to one Mr. H. on 14 June 1979.   She was married to the second applicant on 13 October 1979.   They have a son, M., who was born on 24 January 1984.           On 26 November 1986, the two children were placed in a foster home under a Place of Safety Order and care proceedings were commenced.   The local authority alleged neglect of the children, who were reported as living in filthy conditions and as being behaviourally disturbed.   On 22 January 1987 the Court made care orders in respect of the two children.   An application for the discharge of the care order by both applicants was dismissed on 2 December 1987.           After the making of the care order in January 1987, the first applicant was granted access to both children once every fortnight. Three months later it was reduced to once every month.   This was soon reduced to once every six weeks, and subsequently further reduced to seeing D. four times a year and M. three times a year.   She was not allowed to see the children together with the second applicant, who was granted access to M.           The second applicant's access to D. and M. was terminated on 17 February 1988.   He has applied for legal aid to institute wardship proceedings in respect of D.   The outcome of his application for legal aid is not yet known.   He has also applied to the Juvenile Court for access to be restored to M. pursuant to section 12C of the Child Care Act 1980.   COMPLAINTS   1.       The first applicant complained that the absence of any right to apply for an increased access in the absence of its termination constituted a violation of Article 6 para. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.   She also complained that restriction of her access with no recourse to the court for redress violated her right to family life under Article 8 and Article 12 of the Convention.   2.       The second applicant complained that the absence of any judicial remedy to determine his claim for access to D., his step-son, constitued a violation of Article 6 para. 1.   He further complained that the absence of any right to apply for access to his step-son when the child is in public care violated his right to family life under Articles 8 and 12.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 28 July 1989 and registered on 28 August 1989.           On 4 December 1989, the Commission decided to bring the application 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.           By letter dated 7 March 1990, the Government informed the Secretariat that they proposed to settle the case in light of the changes in legislation - in particular section 34 of the Children Act 1989 which confers on parents the possibility of having all questions of contact with their children determined by a court.   They also proposed to pay £ 3,000 compensation.           By letter dated 27 March 1990, the applicants' solicitor agreed to accept the offer and enquired if the Government would also pay their costs.           By letter dated 6 April 1990, the Government stated that they were willing to pay the applicants' reasonable costs.           By letter of 11 July 1990, the applicants' solicitor informed the Secretariat that the case had been settled and could be struck off the Commission's list of cases.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission notes that the parties have agreed to settle the case in light of the change in legislation, which will allow parents to have all questions of contact with their children determined by a court, and on the basis of the payment of £ 3,000 and legal expenses.   The Commission further notes that the applicants accordingly wish to withdraw their application.           In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicants do not intend to pursue their application before the Commission since the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) and (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 of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission unanimously           DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE LIST OF CASES.     Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission              (H.C. KRÜGER)                           (C.A. NØRGAARD)