CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 31 août 1992

.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. 18456/91                       by Denise WERBICKAS                       against the United Kingdom           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 31 August 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  J.A. FROWEIN                  F. ERMACORA                  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            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                    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 7 February 1991 by Denise WERBICKAS against the United Kingdom and registered on 3 July 1991 under file No. 18456/91;         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 1952 and resident in Stockton.         The facts, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant gave birth to her daughter F. on 13 November 1986. She had already received treatment for depression and had been admitted to hospital several times.   Following the birth, she suffered from a post-natal depression and was experiencing problems with her marriage breaking down.   On 7 February 1987, she was admitted to a psychiatric unit with her baby.   On 15 April 1987, the Social Services removed F. from the unit, following a decision that mother and child should be permanently separated.   A case-conference had been held to which neither she nor any of her family had been invited.   The applicant alleges that she asked for F. to be cared for by her own family pending her discharge but that her request was refused.   On 16 April 1987 F. was made a ward of court and on 12 May 1987, her interim care was confided to the local authority.   Between April 1987 and July 1988, F. remained with short-term foster parents.         The applicant was discharged from hospital on 22 June 1987.         On 19 October 1987, the court ordered that the applicant and F. spend a period of time together in a special unit.   The applicant however discharged herself, considering that she did not require hospital treatment and wanting to care for F. at home.   The case came for hearing before the High Court on 5 February 1988.   The applicant's solicitor had failed to prepare the case properly.   No affidavits had been filed.   The court made an order to place F. with long-term foster parents with a view to adoption and terminated the applicant's access to F.   The applicant's counsel had applied for an adjournment, but this was refused.         It is unclear whether the applicant's solicitor failed to put in any appeal against the decision or, having lodged an appeal, it was dismissed.   The applicant was merely told by her solicitor some time after the hearing that the appeal had been dismissed.         On 20 March 1990, the Official Solicitor was appointed guardian ad litem of F.         The applicant made an application for care and control of F, which was heard on 30-31 October and 1 November 1990.   The application was dismissed and access of the applicant to F. was terminated, but the applicant's solicitor was summoned to show cause why an order should not be made in respect of their costs.         On 16 November 1990, the Court made an adoption order in respect of F., dispensing with the applicant's consent.         In his report to the Court, the Official Solicitor recommended that adoption was in the best interests of F. but criticised the local authority as being precipitate in its decision to separate F. and the applicant and for failing to try to rehabilitate them at an early stage with the support of the applicant's extended family.   He also criticised "the failure of the legal processes to ensure that all of the parties gained a full and fair hearing of their points of view...".           He added: "It is alarming that [the applicant] was so poorly represented.   What I find even more alarming is that the lack of proper representation of [the applicant's] case was not picked up by those other members of the legal profession who were present at the proceedings.   In terms of the best interests of F. a thorough hearing at that point would have ensured that her future could have been secured without the need for such delay and distress to all the parties concerned ..."         The judge, when making the adoption order, also deprecated the decision-making process followed by the local authority, in particular their decision immediately to pursue the policy of adoption and not to investigate more thoroughly the possibility of rehabilitating F. with the applicant and her family.   He also noted that the local authority had not served affidavits until the day of the hearing on 5 February 1988 and that the applicant's solicitor had given no instructions to counsel.   He however concluded that in view of the possible risk of the applicant suffering further health problems and the risk of taking F. again from a settled environment where she had been for two years, it was in F.'s interests to stay with her adoptive parents.   The applicant was advised by her legal representative that she had no grounds of appeal.         The applicant has been advised that she has a claim for negligence against her former solicitors, and proceedings have been instituted.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant has complained that she was not involved in the decision taken with respect to F.'s future while she was in hospital and that the social services refused to allow F. to remain with the applicant's family.   She has also complained that she did not receive a fair hearing in February 1988 and that she   has been deprived of the right to bring up F. as a Catholic (F. has been placed with non-Catholic adopters).   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 7 February 1991 and registered on 3 July 1991.           On 2 December 1991, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Government and to ask for written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.           By letter dated   30 April 1992, the Government proposed settling the case on the basis of an ex gratia payment of £3 000 and paymant of reasonable legal costs. By letter dated 1 July 1992, the applicant's solicitors informed the Secretariat that she had accepted the settlement and no longer wished to continue with the case.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The Commission recalls that the applicant has accepted the proposal of the respondent Government to settle the case and that she no longer wishes to pursue the case.               In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application before the Commission since the matter has been resolved.   The Commission further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application.         It follows that the application may 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 OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES.   Secretary to the Commission                  President of the Commission         (H.C. Krüger)                                 (C.A. Nørgaard)