BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> E.L. v the United Kingdom - 33140/06 [2011] ECHR 640 (29 March 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/640.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 640 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
33140/06
by E.L.
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 March 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
Nebojša Vučinić,
judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 August 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no. 33140/06) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a British national, Ms E.L. (“the applicant”), on 11 August 2006. The President of the Chamber acceded to the applicant’s request not to have her name disclosed (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
The applicant was represented by Ms N. Mole of the Aire Centre, a lawyer practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms H. Moynihan of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.
THE FACTS
The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Ormskirk.
The applicant’s daughter was born in 2003. Shortly after the applicant and her daughter were discharged from hospital, a swelling was observed on the child’s skull. A Consultant Paediatric Radiologist considered that there had been some associated intracerebral injury, which most commonly occurred through shaking or direct impact. Consequently, the child was removed from the applicant’s care for approximately eleven months, during which time the applicant was afforded limited contact. The child was subsequently returned to the applicant as the cause of the injury could not be determined.
The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that her separation from her daughter amounted to degrading treatment and violated her right to respect for her family and private life. She further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the conduct of the criminal investigation, the civil proceedings and the decision to refuse her application for legal aid to pursue a domestic claim under the Human Rights Act 1998. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the refusal of legal aid to pursue the domestic claim deprived her of an effective remedy.
THE LAW
On 3 February 2010 the Government offered to pay the applicant damages of GBP 10,000 in settlement of the case. Although the applicant did not respond within the deadline set, on 7 December 2010 the President of the Chamber agreed to extend the deadline to 11 January 2011. On 6 January 2011 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that she wished to accept the Government’s offer. On 15 February 2011 the applicant confirmed that she consented to the withdrawal of her application.
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 and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
Registrar President