AFFAIRE M.A.K. ET R.K. CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012) 65 [1] Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului M.A.K și R.K împotriva Regatului Unit Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede că el supraveghează executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumită în continuare "convenția" și "Curtea") [2] Având în vedere hotărârea de mai jos, care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului odată ce a devenit definitiv Numele cauzei (referitor la cerere) Hotărârea Definitivului M.A.K și R.K (45901/05) 23/03/2010 23/06/2010 Reamintind că constatările de încălcare făcute de Curte impun, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate în hotărâri, adoptarea de către statul membru pârât, dacă este necesar, a unor măsuri individuale care să pună capăt încălcărilor și să șteargă, pe cât posibil, consecințele acestora pentru solicitant, precum și măsuri generale care să permită prevenirea unor încălcări similare; După ce a invitat autoritățile din statul membru în cauză să furnizeze un plan de acțiune privind măsurile propuse pentru executarea hotărârii; după examinarea, în conformitate cu normele Comitetului privind aplicarea articolului 46 alineatul (2) din convenție, a bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern (a se vedea bilanțul de acțiune, documentul DH-DD(2012)216E [3] după ce a luat act de faptul că Statul pârât a acordat părții reclamante satisfacția echitabilă prevăzută în hotărârea pronunțată; DECURSĂ că acesta și-a îndeplinit funcțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d final on 23rd March 2010) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on [data] October 2010 Case Summary Case description: - The case sendred the medical treatment of a child (the applicant together with her father) in March 1998 in a public spital, in particular conducting tests on the al doilea aplicant without parental consimt, the prevention without a legal bazis of the first applicant from the visising his daughter due to suspecte of sexual abuze and failure to consult a dermatologist with due urgency to obtain an aviz regarding marks on the al doilea applications skin. The European Court found that the family separation which arose from the prevention of visining rights whilst the al doilea applicant was hospitalised amounted to an interference with the aplicants right to respect for family life. - The Court held that there had been a încălcarea articolului 8 in relation to both aplicants and Article 13 in relation to the first applicant only. Individual Measures Satisfacție echitabilă: - The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence previously submitted. Other individual Measures: - The Government considers no further individual measures are required, beyond the payment of just satisfaction, ciocause the case was about the individual application of a policy one once. The first applicant was subsequently no longer prevânzared from visising the al doilea aplicant and so there was no on-going breach General Measures Publication: - The case has been reported by a range of publicitieshers of law reports in hard copy and online. - It is accesed within the UK, for free, on www.leaningii.org as well as on the website of the Court. Dissemination: Article 13 infringement : The Government considers it is unnecessary to take further steps to diseminate the judgment because the events at question in these cases predate the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998: claims in relation to events of amilar nature which occurred after 1 October 2000 can be brought in the UK under this Act. Viziting Restrictions : statusory ghidance to local authorities and others, set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children, was revised and issued in 2006 and 2010; revised Volum I of The Children Act 1989 Guideance and Regulations on Court Orders was revised and resund in 2008. In the later ghidance, paragraph 4.53 in the Chapter on the protection of Children, sets out clearly that where a Court makes an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) it may give as to the contact the child may have with anumite persons and may be allowed to have with others. In circumstances such as those that arose in RK and MAK, the apte road for the local authority to take would be to application for an EPO and to seek directions about the nature of contact between the child and his/her parts, rather than setting up informal aranjamente to prevent or restrict contact. Both of the publications above give ghidance on EPOs. Tests conducted without consimt : The General Medical Council (GMC), the Independent regulator for doctorers, has issued a range of ghidance setting out what is expected of doctorers registered to Practice in the United Kingdom, includuding 0 - 18 years: ghidance for all doctorers (http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/thical_guidance/children_guidance_index.asp and specifically on consimt http://www.gmc-uk.org/ The Department of Health issued an updated Reference ghid to consimt for examination or treatment in 2009 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationandstatistics/Publications/PublicationspolicyAndGuidance/DH_103643) which provides a ghid to the legal framework and cross-refers to the GMC guideance. Other general Measures: - The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed. [1] Adoptată de Comitetul miniștrilor la 8 martie 2012 în cadrul celei de-a 1136-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor. [2] A se vedea, de asemenea, recomandările adoptate de Comitetul miniștrilor în cadrul supravegherii hotărârilor Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului, în special Recomandarea Rec(2004)6 a Comitetului de Miniștri al statelor membre privind îmbunătățirea acțiunilor interne. [3] Numai în limba engleză

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)65

[1]

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

M.A.K et R.K contre le Royaume-Uni

Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «

la Convention

» et «

la Cour

»)

[2]

,

Vu l’arrêt ci-dessous, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité une fois qu’il est devenu définitif

;

Nom de l’affaire (réf. requête)

Arrêt du

Définitif le

M.A.K et R.K (45901/05)

23/03/2010

23/06/2010

Rappelant que les constats de violation faits par la Cour exigent, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée dans les arrêts, l’adoption par l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire, de mesures individuelles mettant fin aux violations et effaçant autant que possible les conséquences de celles-ci pour le requérant, et de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;

Ayant invité les autorités de l’Etat défendeur à fournir un plan d’action concernant les mesures proposées pour exécuter l’arrêt ;

Ayant examiné, conformément aux Règles du Comité pour l’application de l’article 46, paragraphe

2, de la Convention, le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement (voir bilan d’action, document

DH-DD(2012)216E

)

[3]

;

Ayant noté que

l’Etat défendeur a versé à la partie requérante la satisfaction équitable prévue dans l’arrêt ;

DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et

DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action Report

MAK and RK v the United Kingdom (application nos 45901/05 and 40146/06; judgment

final on 23rd March 2010) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on

[date] October 2010

Case Summary

1.

Case description:

- The case concerned the medical treatment of a child (the applicant together with her father) in March 1998 in a public hospital, in particular conducting tests on the second applicant without parental consent, the prevention without a legal basis of the first applicant from visiting his daughter due to suspicion of sexual abuse and failure to consult a dermatologist with due urgency to obtain an opinion regarding marks on the second applicant’s skin. The European Court found that the family separation which arose from the prevention of visiting rights whilst the second applicant was hospitalised amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for family life.

- The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 in relation to both applicants and Article 13 in relation to the first applicant only.

Individual Measures

2.

Just satisfaction:

- The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence previously submitted.

3.

Other individual measures:

- The Government considers no further individual measures are required, beyond the payment of just satisfaction, because the case was about the individual application of a policy on one occasion. The first applicant was subsequently no longer prevented from visiting the second applicant and so there was no on-going breach

General Measures

4.

Publication:

- The case has been reported by a range of publishers of law reports in hard copy and online.

- It is accessible within the UK, for free, on

www.bailii.org

as well as on the website of the Court.

5.

Dissemination:

-

Article 13 infringement

: The Government considers it is unnecessary to take further steps to disseminate the judgment because the events at question in these cases predate the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998: claims in relation to events of a similar nature which occurred after 1 October 2000 can be brought in the UK under this Act.

-

Visiting Restrictions

: statutory guidance to local authorities and others, set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children, was revised and issued in 2006 and 2010; revised Volume I of The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations on Court Orders was revised and reissued in 2008. In the later guidance, paragraph 4.53 in the chapter on the Protection of Children, sets out clearly that where a Court makes an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) it may give additional directions as to the contact the child may have with certain persons and may be allowed to have with others. In circumstances such as those that arose in RK and MAK, the appropriate route for the local authority to take would be to apply for an EPO and to seek directions about the nature of contact between the child and his/her parents, rather than setting up informal arrangements to prevent or restrict contact. Both of the publications above give guidance on EPOs.

-

Tests conducted without consent

: The General Medical Council (GMC), the independent regulator for doctors, has issued a range of guidance setting out what is expected of doctors registered to practise in the United Kingdom, including 0 - 18 years:

guidance for all doctors (

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/children_guidance_index.asp

)

and specifically on consent

http://www.gmc-uk.org/

and on making visual and audio recordings

http://www.gmc-uk.org/

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) Child Protection Companion (

http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/)

provides additional detail.

The Department of Health issued an updated Reference guide to consent for examination

or treatment in 2009

(

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_103643

) which provides a guide to the legal framework and cross-refers to the GMC guidance.

6.

Other general measures:

7.

- The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.

[1]

Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 8 mars 2012 lors de la 1136e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.

[2]

voir aussi les recommandations adoptées par le Comité des Ministres dans le cadre de la supervision des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, et en particulier la Recommandation

Rec(2004)6 du Comité des Ministres aux Etats membres sur l'amélioration des recours internes.

[3]

Document en anglais uniquement