CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 novembre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA3022B31 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:17.83pt; font-family:serif } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s560DCDD3 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     590   26.11.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF E. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of E. and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 33218/96). The Court held unanimously that:   there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; no separate issue arose under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded 16,000 euros (EUR) each to E., H. and L. and EUR 32,000 to T. in respect of damage and EUR 64,000 in total for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, E., H., L. and T., all United Kingdom nationals, were born in 1960, 1961, 1963 and 1965 respectively and live in Scotland. E., L. and T. are sisters and H. is their brother. After the death of the applicants’ father in 1965, their mother cohabited with W.H..The family lived in a local authority flat in Dumfries.   On 16 November 1976, it was recorded that E., was found semi-conscious having taken an overdose. The medical notes recorded that E. complained that W.H. hit her, shouted and upset her so much that she ran away intending to kill herself. On 7 January 1977, L., the second applicant, then aged 13, ran away from home, following an incident in which she claimed that W.H. had attempted to rape her.   W.H. was arrested by the police and charged with indecently assaulting E. and L. On 8 January 1977, he pleaded guilty to charges involving offences of indecent behaviour against E. and L. He was not detained pending sentence and, according to the applicants, returned to live in their home. He was sentenced to two years’ probation.   In or about November 1988, following counselling, E., L. and T. reported to the police that they had been abused by W.H. Charges were then brought against W.H., who was convicted of serious acts of indecency against E. (19 October 1967-18 October 1972 and 1 September 1976-18 October 1976); of serious acts of indecency against L. (28 July 1968-31 December 1974); and of similar acts against T. (28 August 1974-27 August 1978).   On 20   July 1989, the High Court sentenced W.H. to a two-year suspended prison sentence, having regard to the reports which indicated that he now lived in Yorkshire and that most of the offences predated his earlier conviction in 1977.   It was at this time that the applicants alleged they became aware that W.H. had been subject to criminal proceedings in 1977 and that he had been placed on probation on the condition that he did not reside in their home.   In or around 1992 to 1993, the applicants applied for compensation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme concerning the abuse they suffered, making, among other things, the following claims:   From about 1967, from the age of 6 or 7, E. claimed she suffered 10 years of abuse from W.H.; he required her to masturbate him, punched and hit her and sexually abused her, he also obliged her and the others to strip to the waist and hit each other with dog chains. She had suffered serious problems since that time, having made several suicide attempts and having developed a severe drink problem. A psychiatric report of 24 April 1992 concluded that her symptoms corresponded to a diagnosis of severe post-traumatic stress disorder. From about 1967 H. claimed he suffered from physical abuse, assaults and threats of violence from W.H. From about the age of 6 or 7, W.H. punched him in the stomach and bashed him against the wall. A psychiatric report of 9 June 1992 concluded that he had long-term relationship problems, poor self-confidence and long-standing personality difficulties. From 1969 - 1979, L. claimed she suffered sexual and physical abuse from W.H, who started interfering with her when she was about 5 or 6. When she was older, he made her perform oral sex and made her and the other children hit each other with chains and whips and would sometimes join in. From the age of 11 or 12, he had sexual intercourse with her several times. A psychiatric report of 24 April 1992 concluded that her symptoms, including nightmares and sleep disturbance, corresponded to a diagnosis of severe post- traumatic stress disorder.   From about 1971 to 1989 T. stated that she suffered sexual and physical abuse from W.H. He made her masturbate him and, when she was 14, forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. A psychiatric report of 24 April 1992 concluded that her symptoms, including low self-esteem, fear, mistrust and depression, corresponded to a diagnosis of severe post- traumatic stress disorder.   The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) made an assessment awarding 25,000 pounds sterling (GBP) to E., L. and T. for general damages.   On 30 January 1996, the applicants asked the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland to undertake an investigation into their allegations of negligence and maladministration by the local authority. By letter dated 8 February 1996, the Ombudsman stated that he had no jurisdiction. 2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 July 1996 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 23 October 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Netherlands), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints The applicants alleged that the local authority failed to protect them from abuse by their stepfather and that they had no remedy. They relied on Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court noted that the Government did not contest the applicants’ allegations or argue that they were false or unsubstantiated. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board made substantial awards to E., L. and T., implying that the allegations of long-standing abuse were upheld. It was true that no award was made to the second applicant, H., and that no charges concerning him were ever brought against W.H. and it did not appear that H. made any disclosure about physical abuse until relatively late. However, the statements of the other applicants, his sisters, supported his claims concerning the violence and physical battering that occurred in the home and the psychological reports submitted were consistent with a history of abuse. The Court was satisfied that the applicants suffered abuse as described. It did not, however, consider that this might be construed as any determination of guilt of criminal offences on the part of W.H., criminal law liability being distinct from international law responsibility under the Convention.   The Court was satisfied that the social services should have been aware that the situation in the family disclosed a history of past sexual and physical abuse from W.H. and that, notwithstanding the probation order, he was continuing to have close contact with the family, including the children. Even if the social services were not aware he was inflicting abuse at this time, they should have been aware that the children remained at potential risk. The fact that at the relevant time there was not the knowledge of the prevalence of, and persistence of, sexual offenders victimising children within a family that there exists now, was not significant in this case, as the social services knew that there had been incidences of sexual abuse resulting in criminal offences and were under an obligation to monitor the offender’s conduct in the aftermath of the conviction. Yet, the social services failed to take steps which would have enabled them to discover the exact extent of the problem and, potentially, to prevent further abuse taking place.   The Court was satisfied that the pattern of lack of investigation, communication and co-operation by the relevant authorities must be regarded as having had a significant influence on the course of events and that proper and effective management of their responsibilities might, judged reasonably, have been expected to avoid, or at least, minimise the risk or the damage suffered. There had, accordingly, been a violation of Article   3.   Article 13 The Court observed that, although awards were made to three applicants by the CICB, the Board could not be regarded as providing a mechanism for determining the liability of the social services for any negligence towards the children. In any event, while it provided some compensation to E., L. and T., no award at all was made to H. and the awards that were made did not take into consideration any pecuniary loss resulting from the abuse suffered.   Similarly, while a complaint to the local authority ombudsman, at the appropriate time, might have led to an investigation of certain aspects of social services management of the case, the findings would not have been binding, the ombudsman only having the power to make recommendations. Furthermore, it would appear that the ombudsman gave his view that he did not have jurisdiction.   Although, if taking action today, the applicants might, at least on arguable grounds, have a claim to a duty of care under domestic law, reinforced by the ability under the Human Rights Act to rely directly on the provisions of the Convention, the Court was not satisfied that this was the case at the relevant time in 1996. In addition, judicial review proceedings would only have been available to challenge the social services’ actions at the time that they occurred. The applicant children were not in a position where they could make use of such redress.   The Court accordingly found that the applicants did not have at their disposal the means of obtaining a determination of their allegations that the local authority failed to protect them from inhuman and degrading treatment. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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] .   Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.