Facts
- Four siblings, anonymised as Z, A, B, and C, lived with their parents in conditions of severe neglect and abuse over a period of years.
- From about October 1987 onward, relatives, teachers, health workers, police, neighbours, and other professionals repeatedly reported serious child-welfare concerns to the local authority’s social services department.
- Reports described extreme neglect and mistreatment, including dirty and unsafe living conditions, lack of food, the children scavenging for food, confinement, bruising and injuries, and signs of serious emotional harm.
- Social services and other professionals held repeated meetings and case discussions over several years, but protective action was delayed and the children remained in the home.
- In June 1992, the mother told social services that she could no longer cope and demanded that the children be taken into care, threatening further violence if they were not removed.
- The local authority then took steps to secure the children’s protection and the children were placed in care.
- In the Strasbourg proceedings, a psychiatrist gave evidence that intervention had been improperly delayed and that at least three children suffered serious psychological trauma linked to the prolonged neglect and the delay in removal.
- It was not disputed that the treatment the children endured amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment for the purposes of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- The children brought domestic civil proceedings in negligence against the local authority for failing to exercise child-protection functions to protect them from harm.
- The domestic courts struck out the claim on the basis that, under English law (following X (Minors) v. Bedfordshire County Council), the local authority did not owe the children a duty of care in negligence in respect of its child-protection functions, leaving the applicants without a tort route to damages for the failure to protect.
- The children applied to Strasbourg, alleging breaches of Articles 3, 13, 6 § 1, and 8.
Issues
- Whether the United Kingdom breached Article 3 by failing to take reasonable measures to protect the applicants, as children, from inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted by their parents when the authorities knew or ought to have known of the risk.
- Whether the lack of a viable domestic mechanism to establish the local authority’s responsibility and obtain compensation for the Article 3 harm breached Article 13.
- Whether striking out the negligence claim (and the state of domestic negligence law that prevented it) breached Article 6 § 1 by denying access to a court for the determination of “civil rights and obligations.”
- Whether the facts disclosed a separate breach of Article 8 beyond the matters addressed under Articles 3 and 13.
Decision
- The Grand Chamber held unanimously that there was a violation of Article 3 because the authorities failed to take timely and effective measures, despite repeated warnings over years, to bring the serious neglect and abuse to an end.
- The Court held (15–2) that there was a violation of Article 13, because domestic law did not provide an effective remedy capable of determining responsibility for the Article 3 breach and providing an enforceable award of compensation for the damage suffered.
- The Court held (12–5) that there was no violation of Article 6 § 1: Article 6 protects access to a court only for disputes over “civil rights” that exist, at least on arguable grounds, under domestic law; it does not require a State to create or maintain a particular cause of action in negligence.
- The Court held unanimously that Article 8 raised no separate issue on the facts.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction, including non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses.
Legal Principles
- Article 3 can impose positive duties on States to protect children and other vulnerable persons from inhuman or degrading treatment by private individuals when authorities know or ought to know of a real and immediate risk and fail to take reasonable measures within their powers.
- Where credible reports of severe, long-term neglect and abuse are repeatedly brought to the attention of child-protection authorities, a prolonged failure to take effective protective action may engage State responsibility under Article 3.
- Article 13 requires a remedy that is effective in practice for arguable Convention claims; for serious Article 3 complaints, the remedy must be capable of establishing responsibility and providing appropriate relief, which may include enforceable compensation.
- Article 6 § 1 does not create substantive civil causes of action. It applies to disputes over civil rights and obligations recognised in domestic law (at least on arguable grounds) and does not require national law to recognise a damages claim in negligence in a particular field.
- When the substance of a complaint is fully dealt with under Articles 3 and 13 in the circumstances of a child-protection failure, Article 8 may add nothing further and may require no separate ruling.
Conclusion
Z and Others v. United Kingdom held that the State violated Article 3 by failing, despite years of warnings, to take effective steps to protect four children from severe neglect and abuse by their parents, and violated Article 13 because domestic law did not provide an effective means to establish responsibility and obtain enforceable compensation for that Article 3 harm; the Court found no breach of Article 6 § 1 and no separate issue under Article 8.