CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 septembre 1996

.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. 21178/93                                Corralyn Roberts                                     against                               the United Kingdom                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                       (adopted on 10 September 1996)                                TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  Page   INTRODUCTION .............................................       1   PART I:    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .........................       2   PART II:   SOLUTION REACHED ...............................       3                                  INTRODUCTION     1.     This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by Corralyn Roberts against the United Kingdom on 21 October 1992.   It was registered on 20 January 1993 under file No. 21178/93.         The applicant was represented before the Commission by Harding and Rowe, solicitors practising in Bideford. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms. Susan Dickson of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   2.     On 11 January 1995, 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 10 September 1996 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:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS     5.     The applicant is a British citizen born in 1966 and Bideford.   6.     At the time of the application to the Commission, she had three children, a son L. born on 27 August 1984, a son M. on 18 August 1987 and a daughter B born on 13 June 1989 who had been taken into care.   7.     Following a number of interventions by the social services, on 29 November 1989, the Juvenile Court made an order returning the children to the applicant under a three year supervision order. On 7 December 1989, the applicant took   the three children to live in Spain without informing the local authority. When she returned to the United Kingdom with the children on 8 March 1990, social workers met them at the airport and the children were taken into care. The children had been made wards of court on 7 December 1989 after the discovery that they had been taken from the country and an interim order for care and control made to the local authority.   8.     On 1 August 1990, the local authority decided that the applicant's access to the children should be reduced to once per month and on 21 September 1990, the local authority terminated access completely.   9.     On 21 December 1990, the applicant applied to the court for access.   10.    The case concerning L., M. and B. was eventually heard in May 1992. In his judgment given on 14 May 1992, the High Court judge commented on the passage of time, during which circumstances had changed but concluded therefore that notwithstanding the great improvement in the applicant's lifestyle, attitude and behaviour he would make a care order in respect of all three children.   11.    The applicant made a further application for residence and contact orders in respect of the three children which was heard together with the application of the local authority to free B. for adoption. After a judgment given on 27 June 1994, the applicant's applications for residence orders in respect of all three children were dismissed as was her application for contact with B. Her applications for contact with L. and M. were not expressly dismissed, the judge making no order and leaving it to the discretion of the local authority. The application freeing B. for adoption was granted, the applicant's consent being dispensed with on the grounds that it was being unreasonably withheld. In the judgment the judge commented adversely on the initial decision to stop access at an early stage in the proceedings but found that the interests of the children required a refusal of her applications.   12.    The applicant complained that she has been deprived of her three children unjustifiably and in violation of   Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that she did not receive a fair hearing within a reasonable time.                                   PART II                                SOLUTION REACHED     13.    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.   14.    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.   15.    Between January 1995 and June 1996 there were discussions between the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.   16.    On 21 May 1996, 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.   17.    By letter dated 12 June 1996, the Government agreed to settle the case on the basis of an ex gratia payment to the applicant of £ 10 000 and payment of reasonable legal costs.   18.    In her letter of 28 June 1996, the applicant accepted the proposed terms.   19.    At its session on 10 September 1996, 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.   20.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.       M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber