Bei diesem Bericht handelt es sich um eine Stellungnahme der Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte zu Art. 6 der EMRK wegen überlanger Verfahrensdauer. Die Kommission deutet an, daß eine 16-monatige Verfahrensdauer bei Kindern im Alter von 10-12 Jahren eine Verletzung von Art. 6 der EMRK darstellt. Zu einer Entscheidung kam es nicht, da die Parteien sich einigten.

Vergleiche hierzu das Bundesverfassungsgericht vom 6. Mai 1997 mit sechseinhalb Jahren Verfahrensdauer.

Auszüge:

1. This cases raises issues as to the delay in proceedings in which the three applicant children were placed with permanent foster parents. It was declared admissible in respect of complaints under Article 6 and 8 of the Conventioni.

2. Following correspondence, the parties have agreed to settle the case on the basis of an ex gratia payment of £ 3 000, reasonable legal costs and confirmation by the Government that they are taking steps to implement recommendations for improving listing procedures in family courts.

N. Bratza

Feb 1997

1. This report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by S.P., D.P. and A.T. against the United Kindom on 3 September 1993. It was registered on 18 March 1994 file No. 23715/94. (...)

2. On 20 May 1996, the Commission declared the application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides: (...)

3. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 11 April 1997 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. (...)

5. The applicants, two brothers and their half-brother, are british citizens, born in 1983, 1984 and 1988 and are resident in Herefordshire.

The first applicant, S.P: and the second applicant D.P. were made wards of court on 7 July 1986 on grounds, inter alia, that their father had been involved in abusing another child. S.P. and D.P. were placed with foster parents, Mr. and Mrs. O., where they remained for 15 monhs and a strong bond of affection grew up between them and the foster parents.

On 1 October 1987, the the brothers were returned to live with their mother R. who was living with another man, T. On 8 August 1988, A.T. (the third applicant) was born, his parents being R. and T. The relationship between R. and T. was violent. In April 1991, R. sought refuge with the children in a home for battered women.

Concern arose in the home as to the degree of neglect of the children. On 3 August 1991 the children were found at night on their own outside a pub. On 5 August 1991, R. was evicted from the home and the children taken into care by Hereford and Worcester County Council ("the Council"). They were placed with temporary foster parents.

On 6 November 1991, an interim care and control order was granted by the High Court to the Council.

The intention of the Council at this time was that the children should remain in permanent care and be returned to live with Mr. and Mrs. O., their first foster parents. The children, particularly A.T., were however becoming increasingly attached to their current foster parents as time passed.

On 14 October 1992, the principal provisions of the Children Act 1991 came into force. This had the effect that children who were wards of court automatically were placed in local authority care and the wardship discharged. Since the matter concerning the applicants had not been concluded at this date, the High Court proceeded on 6 October 1992 to de-ward the children on an undertaking by the Council to commence care proceedings under section 31 of the Children Act 1989.

Mr. Luke Clements was at this stage appointed solicitor to represent the children in the proceedings. He made several representations to the Court, expressing his concern that the case was not progressing and that it was imperative for the welfare of the children that they move to a permanent placement as soon as possible.

On 8 March 1993, a directions appointment was obtained before a High Court judge, who accepted that the case had been allowed to drift along through the fault of the court. He made an interim care order, which became final on 19 March 1993.

Following the order, the children were placed by the Council with Mr. and Mrs. O., who had maintained contact with them.

6. The applicants complained of the unnecessary delay in the proceedings, which caused them considerable suffering and uncertainty as to their future and, in the case of A.T., gave rise to conflicting attachments. They invoked Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.

7. Following ist decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission 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.

8. 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.

9. Between May 1996 and December 1996 there were discussions between the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.

10. By letter dated 4 December 1996, the applicants accepted the offer of the Government of 21 November 1996 to settle the case on the basis of an ex gratia payment to the applicants of £ 3 000, payment a reasonable legal costs and the Government´s confirmation that they are taking steps to implement the recommendations made by Dame Margaret Booth DBE in her report investigating the delay in Children Act cases and reviewing the administrative procedures for listing cases ("Avoiding Delay in Children Act Cases"), published July 1996).

11. At its session on 11 April 1997, 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.

12. For these reason, the Commission adopted the present Report.