CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 17 mai 1994

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                                FIRST CHAMBER                          Application No. 20609/92                                 Peter Wills                                   against                             the United Kingdom                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                            (adopted on 17 May 1994)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  Page   INTRODUCTION .............................................       1   PART I:    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .........................       2   PART II:   SOLUTION REACHED ...............................       4                                INTRODUCTION   1.     This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by Peter Wills against the United Kingdom on 20 May 1992.   It was registered on 11 September 1992 under file No. 20609/92.         The applicant represented himself before the Commission. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Martin Eaton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   2.     On 13 October 1993 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides:         "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition       referred to it:         a.   it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake       together with the representatives of the parties an examination       of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the       effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all       necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the       Commission;         b.   it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the       parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement       of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined       in this Convention."   3.     The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 17 May 1994 adopted this Report which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   4.     The following members were present when the Report was adopted:                    MM.   A. WEITZEL, President                       C.L. ROZAKIS                       F. ERMACORA                       A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  Mrs. J. LIDDY                  MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                       B. MARXER                       G.B. REFFI                       B. CONFORTI                       N. BRATZA                       E. KONSTANTINOV                                     PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   5.     The applicant is a British citizen born in 1936 and resident in Weymouth.   6.     On 5 March 1988, the girlfriend (later the wife)   of the applicant's younger son gave birth to twins J. and N..   7.     In April 1988, J. suffered a broken arm. On 1 October   1988, N. was taken to hospital by her mother and found to have suffered a skull fracture. On 6 October 1988, both parents were arrested. On 7 October 1988, Place of Safety Orders were obtained by the Social Services of the local authority in respect of the children.   8.     A full care order was made on 13 February 1989 and the Social Services decided that the twins should be placed for adoption.   9.     From January to July 1990, the Social Services stayed the adoption procedure pending consideration first of the other alternatives of placing the twins with the paternal grandparents   or with the natural parents and then in view of an attempt at rehabilitation with the mother. The rehabilitation programme however was overruled by the Director and/ or Deputy Director of the Social Services. The parents and grandparents were informed in December 1990 that rehabilitation was no longer planned and an application was made for a freeing for adoption order.   10.    On 23 March 1991, the parents issued an application seeking a discharge of the care orders.   11.    On 3 April 1991, the local authority placed the twins with the prospective adopters.   12.    In the proceedings before the High Court, the parents' application to discharge the care orders was heard at the same time as the application by the local authority to terminate access by the parents and the paternal grandparents.   13.    In his judgment of 18 December 1991, the judge criticised the local authority for the unacceptable and avoidable delay which had taken place in the case. Since however in the eight months with the prospective adopters the twins had made dramatic developmental progress and were happy and secure, he found that he had no alternative but to find that the welfare of the children required that they remain with the prospective adopters. He accordingly refused to discharge the care orders. The applicant was granted indirect contact, namely, the exchange of photographs and cards on at least two occasions per annum.   14.    The applicant complained to the Commission that he had been deprived of a normal relationship with his grandchildren. He complained in particular of the length of time taken by the local authority to deal with the case and also alleged that the local authority failed to give proper consideration to the question of rehabilitation with himself and his wife.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   15.    Following its decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   16.    In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   17.    Between October 1993 and February 1994 there were discussions between the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.   18.     On 8 March 1994, the Commission considered the state of proceedings of the case. In view of the parties' apparent willingness to reach a friendly settlement, the Commission made proposals for the consideration of the parties. As a result of these negotiations, the parties reached agreement in the terms set out below.   19.    By letter dated 6 April 1994, the Government agreed to settle the the case on the basis of an ex gratia payment to the applicant of £ 5000 and payment of £ 3000 in respect of costs, the total payment being made in full and final settlement of the applicant's claims in the application.   20.    In his letter which reached the Commission on 18 April 1994, the applicant accepted the proposed terms and agreed formally to withdraw his application.   21.    At its session on 17 May 1994, the Commission found that the parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.   It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   22.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.   Secretary to the First Chamber          President of the First Chamber       (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                           (A. WEITZEL)