CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 20 April 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12062/24 HXA against the United Kingdom lodged on 19 April 2024 communicated on 31 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE HXA was born in 1988 and has three younger siblings. Their childhood was characterised by sustained abuse and neglect. From at least September 1993, there were a series of referrals to the local authority, Surrey County Council, about the mother’s inappropriate physical chastisement, verbal abuse and lack of supervision of her children. Between September 1993 and July 1994, five investigations were conducted by the local authority. During this time, the names of the applicant and her siblings were placed on the child protection register. In November 1994, after seeking legal advice, the local authority resolved to undertake a full assessment with a view to initiating care proceedings. In the event, however, no such assessment was carried out. The local authority continued to monitor the family but on at least some occasions no decisions or actions were taken despite ongoing concerns being reported. In July 1996 the applicant’s mother formed a relationship with Mr A. Four   years earlier, he had been convicted of assault on his own infant son. Thereafter concerns about Mr A’s behaviour towards the applicant and her siblings were raised with the local authority by several sources. In 1999 there were allegations of sexual abuse of the applicant and her younger sister by both Mr A and Mr A’s father. In January 2000 it was recorded at a case conference that the applicant had alleged that Mr A had touched her breast. The local authority decided not to investigate the matter due to fear of how Mr A would react and because it was wrongly thought that there had been no previous similar concerns. It resolved not to take any action beyond carrying out “keeping safe” work with the applicant and her sister. In the event, however, no such work was undertaken. In 2004, aged 16, the applicant moved out of the family home. In January 2009, following a police investigation initiated after allegations of abuse made by the applicant’s sister, Mr A was convicted of seven counts of rape of the applicant between the ages of nine and 16. He was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s mother was convicted of indecently assaulting her and was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. In 2014 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the local authority alleging a breach of the duty of care owed to her through the failure to protect her from the harm caused by her mother and Mr A. Her claim was struck out on the ground that there had been no “assumption of responsibility” by the local authority, which therefore did not owe her a duty of care. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on 20 December 2023. The applicant did not bring proceedings seeking damages for a breach of her Convention rights under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as the relevant events occurred before that Act entered into force in October 2000. Relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the failure of the local authority to take adequate protective measures in respect of the severe neglect and abuse, including sexual abuse, she suffered as a child. Invoking Articles 6 and 13, she alleges that she had no access to court to have the substance of her complaints examined. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the positive duty under Article   3 of the Convention to take operational measures to protect victims, or potential victims, of ill- treatment? In particular:   (a)     Did the authorities of the respondent State know, or ought they to have known, of a real and immediate risk to the applicant of ill-treatment (see X   and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no.   22457/16, §§   181-83, 2   February 2021, and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   29392/95, §   73, ECHR   2001-V)?   (b)     If so, did the authorities fail to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (ibid.)? What specific steps should the authorities have taken and when should these steps have been taken?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see O’Keeffe v.   Ireland [GC], no.   35810/09, §   117, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Z   and Others v.   the United Kingdom , cited above, §§   102-04 and 108-10)?   3.     The Government are requested to provide copies of all relevant records of social services involvement in the applicant’s family, including records of allegations and observations, reports of home visits and other relevant reports, records of internal meetings and meetings with the family, proposals for further action and decisions.