CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 février 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 94 February 2007 M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 30357/03 Decision 13.2.2007 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Psychiatric patient’s inability to change her “nearest relative”: friendly settlement   The applicant’s complaint related to the identity of the person appointed as her “nearest relative” under the Mental Health Act, 1983. The appointment is intended as a safeguard for persons detained under the Act, with the “nearest relative” being entitled to be informed of the patients’ admission to hospital and of any reviews of his or her detention. However, the person appointed in the applicant’s case was her adoptive father, whom she alleged had sexually abused her when she was a child. She successfully applied to the High Court for a declaration that the relevant legislation was incompatible with her right to respect for her private life in that she had no choice over the appointment of her “nearest relative”, nor any legal means to change it. In her complaint to the Court, the applicant alleged, inter alia , that the Government had failed to change the law in relation to “nearest relatives” pursuant to the friendly settlement that had been agreed in the J . T . v . the United Kingdom case. Striking out : The parties have reached a friendly settlement under the terms of which the Government undertake to rectify the incompatibility identified in the declaration by the prompt enactment of legislation or the use of a remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998 and to pay the applicant sums in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. See also J . T . v . the United Kingdom (striking out – no. 26494/95, 30 March 2000) in Information Note no.   16.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes