CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 décembre 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. 15496/89                       by G.                       against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 December 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   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 31 August 1989 by G. against the United Kingdom and registered on 14 September 1989 under file No. 15496;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a British citizen born in 1964 and resident in T.   He is represented by Sian Lewis-Antony, a barrister practising for Interrights.   The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           The applicant's daughter R. was born on 30 July 1985 and his son M. on 15 April 1987.   On 14 July 1987, the applicant's wife left the applicant and the children to live with another man.   On 16 July 1987, the children were made subject to a Place of Safety Order as a result of immediate difficulties ensuing from the situation.           On 29 July 1987, the applicant was granted interim custody, care and control of both children.   Between 29 July - 19 August 1987, the applicant's wife returned home and she and the applicant were awarded joint interim custody.   On 26 August 1987, the applicant's wife left the matrimonial home permanently.           On 2 October 1987, the County Court ordered care and control to be granted to the applicant and access to the applicant's wife.           On 5 January 1988, the court welfare officer applied to the Court for a care order to be made in respect of the children under section 43 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.   In her report dated 9 December 1987, the court welfare officer, while not doubting his affection for the children, had expressed the view that the applicant was not capable of caring for them.   The Court made an interim care order in favour of the local authority (Wiltshire County Council) but ordered that the children remain in the applicant's custody.           On 2 February 1988, the Court placed the children in the care of the local authority and granted the applicant weekly access of two hours.           On 9 June 1988, the applicant's son M. died of an asthma attack while in the care of the local authority.           On 5 July 1988, the applicant applied for increased access to R.   On 11 May 1988, the court welfare officer had stated that the applicant had done his best to look after the children and recommended that access be increased.   The Court ordered weekly access of 2 1/2 hours for 3 weeks and thereafter 2 1/2 hours at fortnightly intervals.           On 4 October 1988, the Court reduced access further to 1 1/2 hours every 3 weeks.   On 19 December 1988, there was a further hearing before the Court to consider access by both the applicant and his wife who had applied separately for access.   The Social Services of the local authority wished to reduce access further with a view to securing R.'s long-term future with her new family.   In her affidavit of 14 December 1988, the senior social worker on the case, Mrs.   B., gave the view that continued frequent access would be disruptive and distressful for R.           The case was adjourned on application of the local authority due to the illness of Mrs.   B.   The hearing was re-scheduled for 2 March 1989.   On the day of the hearing the applicant sought an adjournment since the court welfare officer was ill and unable to attend the hearing.   In her report of 23 September 1988, the officer had stated that termination of access would be harmful to R. and visits should be set at no less than once per month.           The judge refused an adjournment on the ground that it would not be in the child's interest to adjourn further.   After the hearing, the judge reduced the applicant's access to 4 times per year.           The applicant did not appeal to the Court of Appeal against the refusal of an adjournment.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complained that he did not have a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention since the judge refused to order a short adjournment in order to allow the court welfare officer to attend.   The applicant also complained that his right to respect for his family life had been violated by the order of 2 March 1989 restricting access.   The failure to grant an adjournment also violated Article 8 of the Convention since procedures determining issues relating to family life must be such as to respect family life.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 31 August 1989 and registered on 14 September 1989.           By letter dated 18 October 1989, the Commission's Secretariat requested the applicant to explain whether he had appealed to the Court of Appeal against the refusal of an adjournment.   On 16 January 1990, the applicant's representative replied that it appeared that he had not exhausted domestic remedies and suggested that the case be withdrawn pending exhaustion.           On 12 March 1990, the Commission decided to adjourn the examination of the case.           By letter dated 4 October 1990, the applicant's representative informed the Commission, that since the applicant's solicitor had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, she wished to withdraw the application.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission notes that the applicant's representative has informed the Secretariat that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaints and that she therefore wishes to withdraw the application.   In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue his 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 unanimously           DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.         Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission                (H.C. KRÜGER)                       (C.A. NØRGAARD)