EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 20609/92
Peter Wills
against
the United Kingdom
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 17 May 1994)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1
PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ......................... 2
PART II: SOLUTION REACHED ............................... 4
INTRODUCTION
1. This Report relates to the application introduced under Article
25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by Peter Wills against
the United Kingdom on 20 May 1992. It was registered on
11 September 1992 under file No. 20609/92.
The applicant represented himself before the Commission. The
respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Martin Eaton
of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
2. On 13 October 1993 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the
application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under
Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides:
"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition
referred to it:
a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake
together with the representatives of the parties an examination
of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the
effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all
necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the
Commission;
b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the
parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement
of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined
in this Convention."
3. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached
a friendly settlement of the case and on 17 May 1994 adopted this
Report which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention,
is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution
reached.
4. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:
MM. A. WEITZEL, President
C.L. ROZAKIS
F. ERMACORA
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
E. KONSTANTINOV
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
5. The applicant is a British citizen born in 1936 and resident in
Weymouth.
6. On 5 March 1988, the girlfriend (later the wife) of the
applicant's younger son gave birth to twins J. and N..
7. In April 1988, J. suffered a broken arm. On 1 October 1988, N.
was taken to hospital by her mother and found to have suffered a skull
fracture. On 6 October 1988, both parents were arrested. On
7 October 1988, Place of Safety Orders were obtained by the Social
Services of the local authority in respect of the children.
8. A full care order was made on 13 February 1989 and the Social
Services decided that the twins should be placed for adoption.
9. From January to July 1990, the Social Services stayed the
adoption procedure pending consideration first of the other
alternatives of placing the twins with the paternal grandparents or
with the natural parents and then in view of an attempt at
rehabilitation with the mother. The rehabilitation programme however
was overruled by the Director and/ or Deputy Director of the Social
Services. The parents and grandparents were informed in December 1990
that rehabilitation was no longer planned and an application was made
for a freeing for adoption order.
10. On 23 March 1991, the parents issued an application seeking a
discharge of the care orders.
11. On 3 April 1991, the local authority placed the twins with the
prospective adopters.
12. In the proceedings before the High Court, the parents'
application to discharge the care orders was heard at the same time as
the application by the local authority to terminate access by the
parents and the paternal grandparents.
13. In his judgment of 18 December 1991, the judge criticised the
local authority for the unacceptable and avoidable delay which had
taken place in the case. Since however in the eight months with the
prospective adopters the twins had made dramatic developmental progress
and were happy and secure, he found that he had no alternative but to
find that the welfare of the children required that they remain with
the prospective adopters. He accordingly refused to discharge the care
orders. The applicant was granted indirect contact, namely, the
exchange of photographs and cards on at least two occasions per annum.
14. The applicant complained to the Commission that he had been
deprived of a normal relationship with his grandchildren. He complained
in particular of the length of time taken by the local authority to
deal with the case and also alleged that the local authority failed to
give proper consideration to the question of rehabilitation with
himself and his wife.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
15. Following its decision on the admissibility of the application,
the Commission (First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the
parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance
with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties
to submit any proposals they wished to make.
16. In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on
the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the
possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
17. Between October 1993 and February 1994 there were discussions
between the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.
18. On 8 March 1994, the Commission considered the state of
proceedings of the case. In view of the parties' apparent willingness
to reach a friendly settlement, the Commission made proposals for the
consideration of the parties. As a result of these negotiations, the
parties reached agreement in the terms set out below.
19. By letter dated 6 April 1994, the Government agreed to settle the
the case on the basis of an ex gratia payment to the applicant of
£ 5000 and payment of £ 3000 in respect of costs, the total payment
being made in full and final settlement of the applicant's claims in
the application.
20. In his letter which reached the Commission on 18 April 1994, the
applicant accepted the proposed terms and agreed formally to withdraw
his application.
21. At its session on 17 May 1994, the Commission found that the
parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It
further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the
Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured
on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.
22. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy