FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32666/10
by X, Y & Z
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 July 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2010,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicants, X, Y & Z, are British nationals who were born in 1956, 1962 and 1929 respectively and live in Epson, Surrey. The Vice-President of the Section granted the applicants’ request that their identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court). They were represented before the Court by Mr F. Swain of Leigh Day & Co., a lawyer practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms L. Dauban, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Vice-President of the Section granted leave to MENCAP to file third-party submissions on the issues raised by the case (Rule 44 § 3).
The first and second applicants, both of whom have learning disabilities, were effectively imprisoned in their council flat over the weekend of 17‑19 November 2000, during which time they were physically and sexually abused by a gang of local youths in the presence of the second applicant’s two children. During the fifteen months prior to the incident, the third applicant, who is the first applicant’s mother and carer to both the first and second applicants, had notified the local authority on a number of occasions that local youths were harassing and exploiting the family. On one occasion the first applicant had to seek hospital treatment after he was assaulted by one of the youths. On another occasion, the police raided the flat and discovered that the youths had been using it as a “doss house”. Representatives from the local authority made several visits to the council flat during this period and concluded that the first and second applicants were vulnerable and needy and that their accommodation was very unsafe. However, the Housing Department did not consider that they were eligible for a transfer at that time. In September 2001 a report into the events of 17‑19 November 2000 concluded that the first and second applicants had been “under-supported” by the local authority. The applicants subsequently claimed damages against the local authority but the claim was unsuccessful as the domestic courts found that no duty of care existed between the local authority and the applicants.
The first and second applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the local authority failed in its positive obligation to take the measures necessary to protect them from serious harm. The third applicant complained that the local authority’s failure to take positive measures to protect the first and second applicants also constituted treatment contrary to Article 3 in relation to her. The first and second applicants further complained that the domestic courts’ failure to consider their claim for damages violated their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that there had also been a grave interference with their moral and physical integrity and/or right to respect for their home contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. Finally, all three applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that in the absence of a duty of care, they had been denied an effective remedy for the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 8.
On 15 February 2011 and 13 May 2011 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against the United Kingdom in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay to the first applicant 25,000 euros, to the second applicant 25,000 euros, and to the third applicant 7,000 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and to pay to the three applicants jointly 12,500 euros to cover any costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable. These sums would be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of payment. They would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay the above sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on the amounts, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment would constitute the final resolution of the case.
THE LAW
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyLech Garlicki
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy