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. 8831/24 AB against the United Kingdom lodged on 20 March 2024 communicated on 31 March 2026 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant was born in 2002. During his childhood, he lived in the Birmingham City Council (“BCC”) area until November 2011 and in the Worcestershire City Council (“WCC”) area between November 2011 and January 2016. He came to the attention of BCC in July 2005, aged two, on account of reports to social services of neglect and harm. A social worker made an unannounced visit to the home and found no evidence to substantiate the concerns . A further report to BCC later that month on account of bruising to the applicant’s legs led to BCC becoming aware that the applicant and his mother were living with Ms A, who had a previous conviction for abusing her own daughter. The bruising was reported to the police and a child protection medical examination was undertaken. The applicant attributed the bruising to two different people and the medical evidence was inconclusive. The police took no further action and advised that the applicant be returned to his mother. BCC subsequently closed the case. A number of further allegations of neglect and harm to the applicant in his home were made to BCC and, subsequently, to WCC over the following years. For example, in December 2008 BCC recorded that the applicant’s mother was dressing him in women’s clothing for the amusement of her friends. In April 2012 WCC recorded that the applicant and his 2-year-old brother had been seen walking unaccompanied at night and had been taken into police custody and returned to Ms B, who was caring for them. The record noted that Ms B “is intoxicated and admits to being an alcoholic” and that “[t]he accommodation is squalid with evidence that [the applicant] and [his younger brother] have been eating from the floor”. The allegations were investigated to varying extents. In some cases allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. Other allegations led to substantive local authority involvement, with home visits, Specialist Family Support Sessions and a Child Protection Conference review taking place. The applicant was temporarily removed from his mother’s care by WCC following one reported incident in July 2013. He was returned to his mother’s care in May 2014. In August 2014 it was alleged that the applicant had forced a friend of his younger brother to perform a sex act on him. There was a police investigation and the applicant was placed in foster care. An interim care order was made in May 2015 and a final care order was made in December 2015. The applicant brought domestic proceedings against the BCC and WCC under the Human Rights Act 1998 seeking damages for a violation of Article   3 of the Convention on account of their alleged failure to take measures to protect him from harm he had suffered in the family home. He referred to twelve incidents between 2005 and 2015. The High Court granted an application by the defendants for summary judgment. It concluded that while the applicant had been at risk of being subjected to poor and inconsistent parenting and neglect, there was no realistic prospect of his establishing a breach of Article 3. The applicant appealed, arguing that it was inappropriate to use the summary judgment procedure in his case and that it was at least arguable that the threshold of severity had been met. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and, on 20 November 2023, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. The applicant relies on Article 3 of the Convention and alleges that the local authorities failed to take reasonable preventative measures to protect him from a real and immediate risk of inhuman and degrading treatment of which they were, or ought to have been, aware. 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)?   (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 did they take in response to the allegations made? What specific steps should they have taken and when should these steps have been taken?   2.     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.