CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 10 octobre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA3022B31 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:17.83pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     484   10.10.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF D.P. & J.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment in the case of D.P. & J.C. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 38719/97), which is not final [1] . The Court held unanimously that there had been:   no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); no violation of Article 6 (access to court); a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy);   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and, jointly, EUR 12,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, D.P. and J.C., who are sister and brother, are United Kingdom nationals, born in 1964 and 1967 and living in London and Nottingham respectively.   D.P. - From 1972, when she was about eight, to about 1980, D.P. claimed she was sexually abused on a regular basis by N.C., who was initially the family babysitter, but later became the boyfriend of D.P.’s mother and, in September 1974, her second husband. The abuse occurred once a week, usually on Saturdays (when her mother went out), and whenever she and N.C. were alone in the house. N.C. regularly required D.P. to masturbate him. On at least two occasions he required her to place a nail in the end of his penis. He used to bath her (and her sisters) until the age of 13, when he touched her vagina and breasts. He raped her at the age of 14. At the age of 15 he forced her to take his penis into her mouth and then forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. The abuse continued until about 1980 when D.P.’s boyfriend moved into the family home.   D.P. claimed she was too afraid to tell her mother. When she made an attempt on her life in front of her mother, after being raped by N.C., her mother responded by laughing. D.P. did not complain of the rape, knowing that this would entail a gynaecological examination. J.C . - From about 1978, when he was about ten, J.C. claimed he was sexually abused by N.C. on a regular basis, i.e. on Friday, Saturday or Sunday evenings when his mother was out. This continued until January 1981 (though according to a psychiatric report the second applicant claimed that he was sexually abused from the age of six to 16), when J.C., aged 14, began absenting himself from school. He was taken into voluntary care by the local authority because his mother was unable to cope and placed in a children’s home. Even then, however, he was sexually abused during weekend visits at home. N.C. would masturbate J.C. and tell him to masturbate him. On occasions N.C. would require J.C. to touch his twin sister J. on the vagina and would require J. to masturbate J.C. J.C. did not tell his mother for fear of not being believed and from fear of N.C. The applicants’ mother, although it was not clear whether she was aware of N.C.’s conduct, did not take any interest when the children were distressed. The abuse continued until J.C. began to live independently.   Both applicants maintained that they were forced to act against their will and that they suffered extreme humiliation as a result. They also had extreme difficulty in reporting the matter to the police. Both had also suffered long-term depression and trauma. D.P. had suffered from a personality disorder associated with feelings of low self-esteem, anxiety, anger, aggression, social phobia and to some degree agoraphobia. J.C. suffered from anxiety, anger and aggression. He had difficulties in forming relationships and had suffered from epilepsy since the age of 19.   The applicants claimed they informed the social services of the abuse.     On two occasions in 1978 they told social workers that they were being assaulted by their stepfather. Their mother denied the abuse, however, and no action was taken by the social-services department.   D.P. claimed she also informed a social worker that N.C. was hitting her and doing “other things” to her and, later, that N.C. had raped her, but that she was not believed.   On 19 February 1993, after one of the applicants’ sisters informed the police that N.C. had   sexually abused her,   N.C was charged with, among other things, rape and indecent assault. Around 22 March 1994 N.C. admitted the allegations made by D.P. and J.C. On 25 May 1994 he pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted rape and three of indecent assault (on J.C. and two of his sisters). N.C. was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment, for which one attempted rape and two indecent assaults on D.P. were also taken into consideration.   On 5 May 1994 J.C. applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which offered him compensation of 1,500 pounds sterling (GBP), which he accepted. On 12 July 1994, D.P. also made an application to the Board which offered her GBP 3,000, which she refused.   Both applicants tried unsuccessfully to bring proceedings against the local authority for failing to protect them from the sexual abuse they suffered as children.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 February 1997 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 26 June 2001.       Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nicolas Bratza (British), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), judges , and also Erik Fribergh , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints The applicants complained that the local authority failed to protect them from the abuse they suffered as children and that they had neither access to court nor an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. They relied on Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court observed that there was no indication in the social service records that there was any suspicion of sexual abuse occurring in the applicants’ family household. The applicants also accepted that they did not make any unequivocal complaint to the authorities at the time. It had not been shown therefore that the local authority knew about the sexual abuse.   The Court was not persuaded that there were any particular aspects of the turbulent and volatile family situation which should have led the social services to suspect a deeper, more insidious problem in a family which was experiencing financial hardship, occasional criminal proceedings and with a mother observed to be “less caring” than she should be. Far from N.C. being perceived as a risk element in this scenario, the social services considered that there was grounds for believing, at least in the early years, that he was a positive influence, providing a father figure for the growing number of children, support for the mother and some added wage-earning capacity. In view of the apparent assistance of the mother in covering for N.C. and the silence of all the children notwithstanding their numerous contacts with various professionals over the years, the Court did not consider that the social services could be criticised for failing to instigate an investigation into the possibility of some additional underlying problem.   Nor could it be regarded that the social services, due to the ongoing problems of the applicants within the home, were under any obligation, imposed by Article 3 of the Convention, to remove them into permanent care. While there were times when both applicants showed significant distress in the family environment, both also showed strong ties to the family. After the first applicant was placed in temporary foster care in May 1980, she returned home at her own request. The second applicant was placed in a Children’s Home from 1982 to 1984, with alternate weekends at home and though on some occasions he showed reluctance to go home on other occasions he appeared to enjoy the visits. For the social services to be justified in taking the draconian step of cutting permanently both applicants’ links with their family would have required convincing reasons, which were not apparent at that time.   The Court concluded that it had not been shown that the local authority should have been aware of the sexual abuse inflicted by N.C. on the applicants in their home. In those circumstances, the authorities could not be regarded as having failed in any positive obligation to take effective steps to protect them from that abuse. There had, accordingly, been no violation of Article 3.   Article 8 While the seriousness of the abuse and its effects on the applicants were not in doubt, the Court recalled that the social services were not aware, and were not in a position that they ought to have been aware, that the applicants’ stepfather was abusing them sexually. Insofar as the social services were aware that the family situation was difficult, the records showed that they provided practical and financial assistance, were in frequent contact with the family and took steps to remove the children into temporary care when this appeared necessary. Finding that the authorities had not failed in any positive obligation to protect the applicants’ physical or moral integrity, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8.   Article 6 § 1 The Court noted that the second applicant had had the opportunity, in adversarial proceedings, to have his claims examined in court in the light of the applicable domestic legal principles concerning the tort of negligence. The first applicant would have had the same opportunity, if she had chosen to pursue it. The fact that the second applicant’s claims were struck out as disclosing no cause of action did not therefore disclose any restriction on access to court.   Accordingly, the Court found no violation of Article 6.   Article 13 The Court found that the applicants did not have available to them an appropriate means of obtaining a determination of their allegations that the local authority failed to protect them from serious ill-treatment or the possibility of obtaining an enforceable award of compensation for the damage suffered thereby. Consequently, they were not afforded an effective remedy in respect of their claims of a breach of Articles 3 or 8 and there had, accordingly, been a violation of Article 13.   Judge Rozakis expressed a separate opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (téléphone : 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.