CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 28 juin 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sBE975F9 { width:33.32pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s50A4CB9C { width:22.61pt; display:inline-block } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sB70F9E4 { width:1.1pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s2E9F4572 { width:22.62pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB4D5CB4E { width:4.94pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7A5A2521 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     480   28.6.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASES OF Z. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and T.P. AND K.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM     Wednesday, 28 June 2000 at 9 a.m.   1.   Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom   The applicants   This case concerns an application brought by four siblings, Z, a girl born in 1982; A, a boy born in 1984; B, a boy born in 1986; and C, a girl born in 1988.   Summary of the facts   In October 1987, the applicants’ family were referred to the social services by their health visitor because of concerns about the children, including reports that Z was stealing food. Over the next four and a half years, the social services monitored the family and provided various forms of support to the parents. During this period, problems continued. In October 1989, when investigating a burglary, the police found the children’s rooms in a filthy state, the mattresses being soaked with urine. In March 1990, it was reported that Z and A were stealing food from bins in the school. In September 1990, A and B were reported as having bruises on their faces. On a number of occasions, it was reported that the children were locked in their rooms and were smearing excrement on the windows. Finally, on 10 June 1992 when their mother demanded that the children be taken into care or she would batter them, the children were placed in emergency foster care. The consultant psychologist who examined the children found that the older three were showing signs of serious psychological disturbance and noted that it was the worst case of neglect and emotional abuse which she had seen.   The Official Solicitor, acting for the applicants, commenced proceedings against the local authority claiming damages for negligence on the basis that the authority had failed to have proper regard for their welfare and take effective steps to protect them. Following proceedings which terminated in the House of Lords, the applicants’ claims were struck out. In the judgment given on 29 June 1995, which concerned three cases, Lord Browne-Wilkinson held, among other things, that public policy considerations were such that local authorities should not be held liable in negligence in respect of the exercise of their statutory duties safeguarding the welfare of children.   Complaints   The applicants complained that the local authority had failed in their positive obligation to protect them from inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They also claimed that they were denied access to court to sue the local authority for damages for negligence as a result of the decisions of the domestic courts in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and also denied an effective remedy in respect of their complaints contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.   2.   T.P and K.M v. the United Kingdom   The applicants   This case concerns an application brought by a mother and daughter, born in 1965 and 1983 respectively and resident in Chelmsford.   Summary of the facts   Between 1984 and 1987, the local authority, the London Borough of Newham, suspected that the second applicant was being sexually abused. Following a case conference on 2 July 1987, the second applicant was placed on the Child Protection Register under the category of emotional abuse. On 13 November 1987, the second applicant, then aged four, was interviewed by a consultant child psychiatrist, Dr V. A social worker, Mr P, was present during the interview. In the course of the interview, the second applicant disclosed that she had been abused by someone named “X”. The first applicant’s boyfriend, “XY”, who lived with the applicants, shared the same first name, “X”, as the abuser. However, the second applicant indicated that “XY” was not the abuser and stated that “X” had been thrown out of the house. The first applicant was informed that the second applicant had disclosed that she had been sexually abused by “XY”. When she became agitated and angry, Dr V and Mr P concluded that the first applicant would be unable to protect the second applicant from abuse and that she was attempting to persuade the second applicant to retract her allegation. They removed the second applicant from the care of her mother immediately.   On 13 November 1987, the local authority applied successfully to Newham magistrates court for a place of safety order of 28 days.   On 24 November 1987, the first applicant, having excluded all men from her home, applied for the second applicant to be made a ward of court. The local authority was awarded care and control of the second applicant and the first applicant was granted limited access.   In or about October 1988, the first applicant’s representatives applied for access to the video of the disclosure interview. The health authority and Dr V lodged an objection to disclosure of the video to the first applicant. On an unspecified date at or about that time, the first applicant’s solicitors had sight of the transcript. The transcript showed that the second applicant had said that “XY” had not abused her and that she had identified her abuser as having been thrown out of the house by the first applicant. These matters were raised by the first applicant’s solicitors with the local authority. On 21 November 1988, after a hearing in the High Court where the local authority recommended that the second applicant be rehabilitated to the first applicant, it was ordered by consent that the second applicant remain a ward of court and that interim care and control be committed to the local authority who had leave to place her with the first applicant. The second applicant remained with the first applicant from that time onwards.   On 8 November 1990, the applicants issued proceedings making numerous allegations of negligence and breach of statutory duty against the local authority, the central allegation being that the social worker, Mr P, and the psychiatrist, Dr V, failed to investigate the facts with proper care and thoroughness. The applicants claimed that as a result of their enforced separation each of them had suffered a positive psychiatric disorder. Following proceedings which terminated in the House of Lords, the applicants’ claims were struck out. In the judgment given on 29 June 1995, which concerned three cases, Lord Browne-Wilkinson held, among other things, that public policy considerations were such that local authorities should not be held liable in negligence in respect of the exercise of their statutory duties safeguarding the welfare of children.   Complaints   The applicants complained that the local authority unjustifiably took the second applicant into care on the basis of a careless assumption of fact in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). They complained that they were denied access to court to sue the local authority for damages for negligence as a result of the decisions of the domestic courts, in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and also denied an effective remedy in respect of their complaints, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.   3.   Procedure   The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 9 October 1995 and 2 August 1995 respectively. Having declared the applications admissible, the Commission adopted its reports on 10 September 1999 in which it expressed the following opinions:   1. In the Z. and Others case, unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention and that no separate issues arose under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.   2. In the T.P. and K.M case, by 17 votes to 2 that there had been a violation of Article 8, by 18 votes to 1 that there had been no violation of Article 6 in respect of the first applicant, by 10 votes to 9 that there had been a violation of Article 6 in respect of the second applicant, by 18 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of Article 13 in respect of the first applicant and by 10 votes to 9 that no separate issue arose under Article 13 in respect of the second applicant.   The Commission referred the cases to the Court on 30 October 1999.                 Composition of the Court   The cases will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), John Hedigan (Irish), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Tudor Panţîru (Moldovan), Egils Levits (Latvian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Judges Mary Arden (British), ad hoc Judge ,   and also Maud de Boer-Buquicchio , Deputy Registrar .     Representatives of the parties   Government:   Susan McCrory , Agent; David Anderson and Jemima Stratford , Counsel ;     Sue Ryan , Jenny Gray and Michael Murmane , Advisers .   Applicants:   Case of Z and Others :   Ben Emerson , Penelope Wood , Counsel ;         May Maughan , Elizabeth Anne Gumbel , Advisers .   Case of T.P. and K.M.:   Robert Sherman , Counsel ; Hassan Dervish ,         Nuala Mole , Advisers .   *** After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (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] Judge elected in respect of San Marino.