AFFAIRE A.D. ET O.D. CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)66 [1] Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului A.D. și O.D 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 A.D și O.D (28680/06) 16/03/2010 16/06/2010 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)218E [3] după ce a luat act de faptul că Tribunalul de Primă Instană a acordat reclamantului satisfacia corectă prevăzută în hotărârea pronunțată; DECURSĂ că acesta și-a îndeplinit funciile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenie în această cauză și DECIDE d . . Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Action Report AD and OD v the United Kingdom (aplicația nr. 28680/06; judgment final on 16/03/2010) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 2 November 2011 Case Summary Case description: - The caseta se referă la încălcarea dreptului la cerere (a mother and sound) la respectarea de către familia lor și privată a vieții (violation of Article 8) on account of their treatment by local authority social services, in that: - they were relocated to a family assessment central without the corect assessment being carried out during their stay at the centru; - al doilea applicant was placed in foster care due to the lack of a corect assessment; and - there was an unreasonable delay in returning the al doilea aplicant to his family once the corectassessment had been made (The Care procededings started in 1997 and the subsequent negligence procedings against the local authority concluded in 2003) - The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 in relation to bot applicants and Article 13 combinad with Article 8 in relation to the first aplicant only. Individual Measures Doar satisfaction: - The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence previously submitted. Individual measures: - The Government considers no further individual measures are required beyond the payment of just satisfaction ficause the case sendsions of professionals made on the particularfacts of the case and information available to them at the time. The Children Act 1989 and ghidance requires the local authority to take action if they suspect that a child is suffering or likely to suffer semnificant harm. The al doilea applicant was subsequently returned to his family and so there was no-going breach. As noted below statusory in relation to child protection and care planning has been recently revision. General Measures General Measures maies Article 8: - The Government has taken the following general Measures: - There are a number of Publications that deal with the issues highlighted in this case. Revised statusory ghidance Chapter 5 of the ghidance (managing individual cases) provides advice on what should happen if somebody has about the welfare of a child and in particular, has privices that a child may be suffering, or is at risk of suffering harm. It sets out the assessment process to be followed when there are such privices and emphasises the importantity of evidence based decisions being taken by the local authority to safeguard and promoted a child welfare. The publication can be viewed at: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-00305-2010 - Chapter 3 (care and supervision orders) of the revised Volum I of the Children Act 1989 Guideance and Regulations on Court Orders revised and publicished in 2008 sets out the process which should be followed before and after cared process under section 31 of that Act. Paragraphs 3.49 mails other necessary assessment of a child when an interim or is made. The purpose of these assessments is to provide the court with the information required to make its decisions. The publication can be viewed at: http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-10500-2008 - Since 2002 residential family centres (defined in section 4(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 as establishments which provides acomodation for children and their parinti at which the parintes at General Measures □ art. 13 The Government considers it is unnecessary to take further steaps to diseminate the judgment ciocause the events in question in these cases pre-date the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998: claims in relation to events of a similarar nature which occurred after 1 October 2000 can be brought in the UK under this Act Publication & Disemination: The case has been reported by a range of publicities of law reports in hard copy and online, for example: http://www.leandii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1505.html It is also reported at [2010] EHR 340, [2010] 2 FLR 1, [2010] Fam Law 580 State of execution of judgment: - The Government considers that allcessary measures been taken and the case should be clond [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)66

[1]

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

A.D et O.D 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

A.D et O.D (28680/06)

16/03/2010

16/06/2010

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)218E

)

[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

AD and OD v the United Kingdom (application no. 28680/06; judgment final on 16/03/2010)

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 2 November 2011

Case Summary

1.

Case description:

- The case concerns the violation of the right of the applicants (a mother and son) to respect for their family and private life (violation of Article 8) on account of their treatment by local authority social services, in that:

- they were relocated to a family assessment centre without the correct assessment being carried out during their stay at the centre;

- the second applicant was placed in foster care due to the lack of a correct assessment; and

- there was an unreasonable delay in returning the second applicant to his family once the correct assessment had been made

(The care proceedings commenced in 1997 and the subsequent negligence proceedings against the local authority concluded in 2003.)

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

Individual Measures

2.

Just satisfaction:

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

3.

Individual measures:

- The Government considers no further individual measures are required beyond the payment of just satisfaction because the case concerned the decisions of professionals made on the particular facts of the case and information available to them at the time. The Children Act 1989 and guidance requires the local authority to take action if they suspect that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The second applicant was subsequently returned to his family and so there was no on-going breach. As noted below statutory guidance in relation to child protection and care planning has been recently revised.

General Measures

4.

General measures – Article 8:

- The Government has taken the following general measures:

- There are a number of publications that deal with the issues highlighted in this case. Revised statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ was issued in both 2006 and 2010. Chapter 5 of the guidance (managing individual cases) provides advice on what should happen if somebody has concerns about the welfare of a child and in particular, has concerns that a child may be suffering, or is at risk of suffering harm. It sets out the assessment processes to be followed when there are such concerns and emphasises the importance of evidence based decisions being taken by the local authority to safeguard and promote a child’s welfare.

The publication can be viewed at:

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-00305-2010

- Chapter 3 (care and supervision orders) of the revised Volume I of The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations on Court Orders revised and published in 2008 sets out the process which should be followed before and after care proceedings under section 31 of that Act. Paragraphs 3.49 – 3.52 focus on the power of the Court to give any directions it considers appropriate about medical or psychiatric examination or other necessary assessment of a child when an interim order is made. The purpose of these assessments is to provide the court with the information required to make its decisions.

The publication can be viewed at:

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-10500-2008

- Since 2002 residential family centres (defined in section 4(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 as establishments which provides accommodation for children and their parents at which the parents’ capacity to respond to the children’s needs and to safeguard their welfare is monitored or assessed and at which the parents are given such advice, guidance or counselling as is considered necessary) must be registered and inspected under the provisions of that Act.

5.

General Measures – Article 13

The Government considers it is unnecessary to take further steps to disseminate the judgment because the events in question in these cases pre-date 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

6.

Publication & Dissemination:

The case has been reported by a range of publishers of law reports in hard copy and online, for example:

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1505.html

It is also reported at [2010] ECHR 340, [2010] 2 FLR 1, [2010] Fam Law 580

7.

State of execution of judgment:

- 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