AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 32842/96

                      by Pekka NUUTINEN

                      against Finland

      The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 15 January 1998, the following members being present:

           MM    N. BRATZA, Acting President

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 A. WEITZEL

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

           Mrs   J. LIDDY

           MM    L. LOUCAIDES

                 B. MARXER

                 B. CONFORTI

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 G. RESS

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 K. HERNDL

                 M. VILA AMIGÓ

           Mrs   M. HION

           Mr    R. NICOLINI

           Mrs   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 26 August 1996 by

Pekka NUUTINEN against Finland and registered on 2 September 1996 under

file No. 32842/96;

      Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 7 January 1997 and the observations in reply submitted

by the applicant on 10 March 1997;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1965 and resident in

Kuopio. He is represented by Mr Janne Kangas, a lawyer in Helsinki.

      The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

A.    Particular circumstances of the case

      In 1987 the applicant was convicted of having caused danger to

others and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. In 1990 he was

convicted of attempted manslaughter (committed without his full senses)

and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. In January 1992 he was

convicted of having threatened and assaulted his then girlfriend H and

of having subjected her to coercion. Those offences had been committed

without the applicant's full senses during H's pregnancy in

October 1991, when their relationship had been ending. He was sentenced

to three months' imprisonment.

      In March 1992 H gave birth to a daughter, I. The two subsequently

moved from Kuopio to Helsinki. In November 1992 the applicant

recognised I as his child. In the light of H's objections a judge of

the then City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten) of Kuopio refused

to confirm the recognition.

      In an action of 21 September 1993 the applicant requested the

City Court to confirm his paternity in respect of I, that custody of

her be shared and that she be granted a right to see him every second

weekend from Friday to Sunday night. In addition, the applicant

requested access arrangements enabling I to spend part of the annual

holidays with him. The City Court's summons was served on H on

13 October 1993, the first hearing having been fixed for

14 January 1994.

      It transpires from an annotation on the summons that H's address

in Helsinki was not available to the City Court, as its disclosure by

"the address service" had been "prohibited". The summons was

nevertheless served on H in Helsinki.

      Before the City Court H contested the paternity claim and

objected to joint custody and to any form of access between I and the

applicant. The hearing was adjourned until 6 May 1994, the City Court

having, on 14 January 1994, ordered the parties to deliver blood

samples by 8 April 1994 on pain of an administrative fine in the amount

of FIM 1,000. H was under a duty to have samples delivered by I.

      In April 1994 H married another man.

      Taking note of H's failure to deliver blood samples, the City

Court, on 6 May 1994, adjourned the proceedings until 9 September 1994.

H was ordered to produce the samples by 12 August 1994 on pain of a

fine of FIM 2,000. At its hearing on 9 September 1994 the City Court

adjourned the proceedings until 16 December 1994, having decided to

seek opinions on the question of access both from the Kuopio Social

Welfare Board (in respect of the applicant) and from the Helsinki

Social Welfare Board (in respect of H and I).

      On 2 December 1994 the Helsinki Social Welfare Board, without

indicating any reasons, requested that the time-limit for the

submission of its final opinion be extended until 31 May 1995.

According to the Government, the Board based its request on H's strong

fears of the applicant and on her new pregnancy which was expected to

end in December 1994.

      On receipt of the request for an extension the District Court

requested the Helsinki Social Welfare Board to provide it with a

preliminary opinion by 14 December 1994.

      In its opinion of 12 December 1994 the Kuopio Social Welfare

Board noted that the applicant did not wish to be in contact with H and

her new husband but was willing to accept that the authorities act as

intermediaries during an initial period of access. Moreover, he

considered that the initial meetings between him and I should take

place in the city or town where I was resident.

      In its preliminary opinion of 14 December 1994 the Helsinki

Social Welfare Board suggested, according to the Government, that the

examination of the access question be adjourned until the end of

May 1995 so that a convenient solution for I could be found in the

exceptional situation. The Board's opinion has not been made available

to the Commission.

      On 16 December 1994 the Kuopio District Court (käräjäoikeus,

tingsrätten; the former City Court) confirmed the applicant's paternity

in respect of I and ordered, on an interim basis, that the two could

meet for two hours on the last Saturday of March, April and May 1995.

The meetings were to take place in Helsinki on premises to be proposed

by "Pienperheyhdistys ry", an association working in this field. The

District Court finally adjourned the proceedings until 2 June 1995.

      In a written opinion of 2 March 1995 drawn up for the purposes

of the access proceedings Dr V, a specialist in medicine and surgery

and also a child and youth psychiatrist, stated as follows:

      (translation from Finnish)

      "[H], [I], [H's husband] and [their son] have paid a visit

      to my practice.

      [H] has shown to me a number of documents relating to

      certain court proceedings; in part to the [access

      proceedings] and in part to [the applicant's assault of H].

      It transpires from the documents that it is intended to

      organise unsupervised meetings between [I] and [the

      applicant].

      On the basis of the above material I must, as an expert,

      prohibit the meetings in question until further notice.

      Both supervised and, in particular, unsupervised meetings

      would amount to a flagrant violation of the best interests

      of the child and would subject [I] at least to a serious

      mental and possibly also physical danger and could damage

      her mental development to an extent which would be

      difficult to treat.

      This opinion is of a preliminary character because I am

      currently examining the matter [more] thoroughly. The

      examination will last a few months, following which I will

      be prepared to submit a more detailed and more reasoned

      opinion.

      The above is being submitted on my honour and conscience.

      (signature and title)"

      In a letter of 22 March 1995 the Helsinki Social Welfare

Authority informed the applicant that the meeting between him and I

fixed for 25 March 1995 would not take place. H had informed the

Authority that she had no intention of bringing I to the meeting-place,

the reason being that she feared that I might be subjected to

"something harmful". The Authority's attempts to convince H to comply

with the court order had been unsuccessful.

      On 18 April 1995 the applicant lodged a request for enforcement

with the County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen)

of Uusimaa acting as Chief Bailiff (ulosotonhaltija, överexekutor). He

referred to H's failure to bring I to the meeting fixed for March.

Moreover, a leading official of the Helsinki Social Welfare Authority

had informed the applicant that H was keeping his paternity secret

from I.

      In a further letter to the applicant the Helsinki Social Welfare

Authority stated, without providing any explanations, that H would not

bring I to the meeting fixed for April either.

      On 22 May 1995 the applicant repeated his enforcement request,

referring to H's failure to bring I to the April meeting.

      On 29 May 1995 the Helsinki Social Welfare Board submitted its

final opinion to the District Court on the question of access. The

opinion has not been made available to the Commission. According to the

Government, the Board noted H's strong fears and suspicions in respect

of the applicant's and his intentions. H seemed to fear that the

applicant's and I's meetings would cause physical or psychological harm

to I or her new family. In the explosive situation at hand it would be

difficult to organise the visits in an atmosphere which could be

beneficial to I. Visits should nevertheless be aimed at in the long

perspective, it being in I's best interests to meet her father in

secure conditions and to be able to form her own opinion of him.

      On 2 June 1995 the District Court adjourned the access

proceedings until 15 June 1995 at H's request. In its decision of

15 June 1995 it afforded custody of I solely to H, granted I a right

to see the applicant for two hours on the last Saturday of every second

month and ordered H to pay the fine of FIM 1,000 for not having

complied with its order of 14 January 1994. As regards the question of

access the District Court stated:

      (translation from Finnish)

      "According to the opinion of the ... Helsinki Social

      Welfare Authority [I] is a well-balanced child with a

      trusting attitude towards adults. Witness [V] has stated in

      his report that the tests carried out by [H], Chief

      Psychologist, and [V's] psychological interviews have shown

      that she is well cared for, mentally balanced, has

      developed and continues to develop well ... According to

      [V], [I] is a healthy and happy child. [He] is of the

      opinion that [the applicant] cannot be granted access

      rights ..., since [H] is afraid of meeting [him] and [I]

      can sense that fear on the part of her custodian.

      Bearing in mind that the three-year-old [I] is a well-

      balanced child, who is behaving in a manner which is

      adequate for her age, short meetings between her and her

      biological father and other strangers cannot be considered

      harmful to her, provided [her] custodian is able to support

      her mentally in connection with the meetings. There is thus

      no reason to prohibit access ... completely. ...

      For these reasons, ... the District Court finds that [I] is

      entitled to meet her father and to stay in contact with

      him. ..."

      The District Court specified that the meetings between the

applicant and I were to take place at a centre for children in

Kauniainen (near Helsinki), where they could be supervised.

      Both parties appealed against the District Court's final

decision.

      On 4 July 1995 the County Administrative Board appointed an

official of the Helsinki Social Welfare Authority to act as conciliator

in the enforcement proceedings. She was ordered to submit her report

by 1 August 1995. H's lawyer informed the conciliator that H could not

be reached in July 1995, since she was on holiday.

      On 19 July 1995 the conciliator requested to be replaced by

another official, the applicant having objected to her appointment as

she had been involved in drawing up the Helsinki Social Welfare

Authority's opinion to the Kuopio District Court.

      On 21 July 1995 the County Administrative Board appointed the

suggested official to act as conciliator and ordered her to submit her

report by 15 August 1995. H informed the conciliator that she wished

the matter to be handled by her lawyer, who would be on holiday until

15 August 1995.

      On 10 August 1995 the applicant repeated his enforcement request

and referred to H's failure to bring I to the July meeting.

      In her report of 21 August 1995 the conciliator concluded that

the situation was completely "locked" and that conciliation therefore

had to be excluded. H was categorically opposed to any access between

I and the applicant and had refused to even discuss the matter in

person with the conciliator. The applicant, for his part, was

approaching the matter so aggressively and expressing such threats that

it rendered any dialogue difficult. Even his telephone calls to the

conciliator had been impertinent and had contained threats.

      Heard in writing by the County Administrative Board, H referred,

inter alia, to the applicant's convictions and prison sentences. It

appears that H also invoked V's opinion of 2 March 1995. In his

rejoinder the applicant essentially considered that such material was

irrelevant for the purposes of the enforcement proceedings. He,

moreover, pointed out that Dr V had retired from his post and had

expressed his views against remuneration by H.

      On 19 September 1995 the County Administrative Board rejected the

applicant's request for enforcement of the access arrangements ordered

on 16 December 1994, noting that the District Court's interim order of

that date had been replaced by its final decision of 15 June 1995. The

applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus,

hovrätten).

      On 29 September 1995 the Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland

dismissed both parties' appeal in the proceedings concerning custody

and access and in essence upheld the District Court's judgment of

15 June 1995. Both parties sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court

(korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen).

      On 7, 8 and 9 December 1995 the applicant repeated his

enforcement request, referring to H's failure to bring I to the

September and November meetings.

      On 19 December 1995 the Helsinki Court of Appeal, acting as

appellate body in the enforcement proceedings, quashed the County

Administrative Board's decision of 19 September 1995 and ordered it to

reconsider the applicant's request as if it also comprised a request

for enforcement of the access arrangements ordered on 15 June 1995.

      The County Administrative Board joined the remitted request and

the applicant's fresh request for enforcement and again heard H in

writing. According to the Board's summary she stated, inter alia, as

follows:

      "... [The applicant's] intention has clearly been to harass

      [H] by requesting the imposition of administrative fines.

      The imposition of fines would not be in the best interests

      of the child, since [H's] financial possibility of caring

      [for I] would thereby be significantly jeopardised. The

      courts' finding that the biological father's rights are so

      strong that they must be given more weight than the

      experts' views on the best interests of the child is

      astonishing. Both the social welfare officers of the City

      of Helsinki and child psychiatrist [V] had been of the

      opinion that [access between I and the applicant] would not

      at this stage be in the best interests of the child."

      The applicant submitted his rejoinder on 29 January 1996. On

13 February 1996 the County Administrative Board ordered H to comply,

on pain of an administrative fine of FIM 5,000, with the access

arrangements ordered on 15 June 1995 and upheld on 29 September 1995.

The Board found that H had not put forward any acceptable reason for

her refusal to bring I to the meetings fixed for July, September and

November 1995. Moreover, the Supreme Court had not suspended the

enforcement of the decision of 29 September 1995 of the Court of Appeal

of Eastern Finland. Finally, the expert views to which H had referred

and which allegedly showed that enforcement would not be in the child's

best interests had been known already to the first instance court in

the civil proceedings regarding access and custody. That material could

therefore not be invoked at the enforcement stage.

      On 7 March 1996 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal in the

civil proceedings concerning custody and access.

      On 14 October 1996 the County Administrative Board ordered H to

pay the fine of FIM 5,000 and ordered her to comply with the access

arrangements on pain of a further fine of FIM 8,000.

      According to the Government, the Helsinki Social Welfare Board

drew up certain further documents in the case on 6 March 1995 and

18 November 1996. These have not been made available to the Commission.

      According to the applicant, the enforcement proceedings remain

pending. Furthermore, he has instituted fresh civil proceedings

regarding access and custody.

B.    Relevant domestic law

      According to the 1975 Paternity Act (isyyslaki, lag om faderskap

700/1975), a court shall of its own motion collect all the evidence

which is necessary for a paternity investigation (section 30). Cases

relating to the establishment or annulment of paternity shall be dealt

with urgently (section 46).

      According to the 1983 Act on Custody and Access Rights with

Regard to Children (laki lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta, lag

ang. vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt 361/1983), the court shall place

primary emphasis on the interests of the child and have particular

regard to the most effective means of implementing custody and access

rights in the future (sections 9 and 10). The court's interim orders

and decisions are immediately enforceable, unless they state otherwise

(sections 17 and 19).

      The 1975 Act on the Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody

of Children and Access Rights (laki lapsen huollosta ja

tapaamisoikeudesta annetun päätöksen täytäntöönpanosta, lag om

verkställighet av beslut som gäller vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt

523/1975) was in force up to 1 December 1996, when it was replaced by

Act no. 619/1996. Under the 1975 Act enforcement proceedings were to

be instituted before the Chief Bailiff which, before ordering

enforcement, was to assign as a conciliator a person appointed by the

Social Welfare Board or another suitable person to mediate between the

parties with a view to enforcing the decision and to draw up a report.

Such mediation was to be aimed at persuading the person taking care of

the child to comply voluntarily with his or her obligations under the

relevant decision. Conciliation was not to be ordered if it was evident

from previous attempts that it would be unsuccessful or, in the case

of a custody decision, if immediate enforcement was in the child's

interests and dictated by strong reasons (sections 4 and 4a). The Chief

Bailiff's decision could, unless otherwise stated therein, be enforced

immediately (section 13).

      If deemed necessary, the Chief Bailiff had to obtain opinions

from a State and municipal authorities as well as from the child itself

and others. It could also proceed to hearing witnesses and experts and

have the child examined by a physician (section 11 of the 1975 Act).

      If, following the access decision, the conditions had changed so

significantly that a re-examination by the civil court would be in the

best interests of the child, the Chief Bailiff was to dismiss the

enforcement request (section 7 of the 1975 Act).

      The Chief Bailiff could impose an administrative fine for

enforcement purposes (section 5). According to the 1889 Penal Code

(rikoslaki, strafflag), such a fine shall be fixed on the basis of the

means of the person concerned. If the fine cannot be collected, it must

be converted into a prison sentence (chapter 2, sections 4 and 5).Under

the 1975 Act enforcement could not take place against the child's own

wishes if he or she was twelve years of age or sufficiently mature for

his or her wishes to be taken into account (section 6). The 1996 Act

contains a similar provision (section 2).

      According to 1996 Act, a request for enforcement shall be lodged

with the competent district court which shall normally appoint a

conciliator to mediate and draw up a report (sections 6 and 8). The

District Court may hear the conciliator, the child and others orally,

obtain opinions from State and municipal authorities and order that the

child be examined by a physician or other expert (section 12).

      The 1996 Act furthermore provides for the possibility of fetching

the child with a view to enforcing access arrangements, if it is likely

that they would not materialise otherwise and there are particularly

weighty reasons for such a measure, bearing in mind the best interests

of the child (section 16). The conciliator or a representative of the

social welfare authority shall be present during the fetching. He or

she shall request the presence of a person close to the child and, if

necessary, that of a physician or other expert (section 24). All

measures shall be carried out without shocking the child. If

enforcement is impossible due to, for instance, the shock experienced

by the child, it shall be postponed (section 3).

      The district court may, on pain of an administrative fine, order

the defendant to hand over the child to the party seeking enforcement

and, inter alia, to disclose the child's whereabouts (sections 15 and

17). For particular reasons, the fine may be staggered, depending on

the duration of the non-compliance (section 18).

COMPLAINTS

1.    The applicant complains that the proceedings were excessively

lengthy, particularly as they involved a number of unnecessary

adjournments before the District Court. He emphasises that under

domestic law paternity actions are to be dealt with speedily. He

invokes Article 6 of the Convention.

2.    The applicant also complains that the court-ordered access

arrangements in respect of his daughter were excessively limited. The

authorities have failed to make sufficient efforts to enforce even

those visiting rights. Instead the authorities have ordered the

daughter's address and telephone number to be kept secret. As a result

the applicant has not once been able to see or otherwise contact her

nor obtain any information about her from the authorities. He invokes

Article 8 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 26 August 1996 and registered

on 2 September 1996.

      On 13 September 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

      The Government's written observations were submitted on

7 January 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that

purpose. The applicant replied on 10 March 1997.  On 15 April 1997 the

Commission granted the applicant legal aid.

THE LAW

1.    The applicant complains that the proceedings have been

excessively lengthy, particularly as they involved a number of

unnecessary adjournments before the District Court. He invokes

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which reads, in so far

as relevant:

      "In the determination of his civil rights ..., everyone is

      entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable

      time by an independent and impartial tribunal established

      by law. ..."

      The Government submit that the complaint is manifestly

ill-founded. The length of the proceedings have not exceeded a

reasonable time, bearing in mind the complexity of the case and the

conduct of both the applicant and the relevant authorities. The

combined paternity, custody and access proceedings were conducted at

three court levels and commenced on 21 September 1993, when the

applicant requested the City Court to issue a summons against H. They

ended with the Supreme Court's decision of 7 March 1996, having thus

lasted almost two years and six months. In the Government's opinion the

matter could be considered particularly complex. The adjournments of

the proceedings before the first instance court were necessary so as

to obtain the various material which the social welfare and health care

authorities were obliged to submit under domestic law. The safeguarding

of I's best interests as well as the birth of H's second child also

delayed the proceedings. Finally, the Government argue that the

applicant himself was partly responsible for the delay by his

"demanding, threatening and aggressive behaviour" which rendered the

social welfare authorities' work more difficult.

      As regards the length of the overall proceedings, including those

before the enforcement authorities, the Government again stress the

particular complexity of the case. The enforcement proceedings were

instituted by the applicant on 20 April 1995 and have not yet ended.

The first conciliator and the County Administrative Board actively

sought to avoid delays resulting from the applicant's request to have

her replaced. The conciliation efforts were interrupted when it became

clear that they would remain fruitless. The County Administrative

Board's first decision was made five months after the applicant's first

request for enforcement.

      The applicant contends that the length of the proceedings cannot

be considered reasonable. They were delayed, inter alia, because the

Kuopio City Court failed to collect all evidence already in the

proceedings leading to the refusal to confirm his recognition of

paternity in 1992.

      The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria

established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question

of "reasonable time", and having regard to all the information in its

possession, that an examination of the merits of the complaint is

required.

2.    The applicant also complains that the court-ordered access

arrangements excessively limited his right to see his daughter I; that

the authorities have failed to make sufficient efforts to enforce even

these arrangements; and that the authorities have ordered I's and her

mother's address to be kept secret. As a result the applicant has not

once been able to see or otherwise contact his daughter nor obtain any

information about her from the authorities. The applicant invokes

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which, in so far as relevant,

reads as follows:

      "1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private and

      family life, ...

      2.   There shall be no interference by a public authority

      with the exercise of this right except such as is in

      accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic

      society in the interests of national security, public

      safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the

      prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of

      health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and

      freedoms of others."

      The Government accept that Article 8 (Art. 8) is applicable but

submit that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded. The positive

obligation inherent in an effective respect for family life is not

absolute. According to the social welfare officials and the second

conciliator involved in the dispute, the relationship between the

applicant and H has been exceptionally complicated. Given their very

strong negative attitude both towards each other and the authorities,

the latter must be considered to have done everything that could

reasonably be expected of them to facilitate the enforcement of the

access arrangements in respect of I. The non-enforcement of those

arrangements has been due to H's non-compliance with the court orders.

Moreover, on Dr V's advice she has not told I that I is the daughter

of the applicant and not that of H's present husband. However, the

Government cannot be held directly responsible for H's behaviour.

      The Government furthermore consider that the applicant himself

has failed to cooperate with the authorities in order to find a

solution which would be "working and positive from the child's point

of view" and based on an investigation which would be "as reliable and

impartial as possible". Instead the applicant's "demanding, threatening

and aggressive" behaviour towards the authorities shows that H's

fearful attitude has been justified. The Government submit, moreover,

that already in October 1991 the applicant threatened H and her

parents. Reference is also made to his convictions of attempted

manslaughter and assault as well as to a report on his mental health

submitted in the proceedings leading to his conviction of the latter

offence in 1990.  The Government consider that the applicant suffers

from serious psychological problems.

      The Government submit no observations in regard to the alleged

concealing of the address and telephone number of the applicant's

daughter.

      The applicant refutes the relevance of the report on his mental

health which is outdated. In any event, the said report shows that he

is no more aggressive than others. After his release from prison in

1990 he has never been deemed to be in need of therapy and during the

last five years his conduct has also been blameless.

      The applicant contends that in 1995 he would have been willing

to negotiate with the officials of the Helsinki Social Welfare

Authority also by other means than over the telephone, provided steps

had been taken to organise meetings between the applicant and his

daughter on the Authority's premises. As a result of the authorities'

ineffectiveness he has still never seen her or been able to contact her

by mail or telephone. Instead he has been obliged to institute further

enforcement proceedings and to seek a reassessment of the substance of

the custody and access matter.

      The applicant finally considers that his right to respect for the

confidentiality of his conversations with his physician has been

violated in the course of the proceedings before the Commission. The

contents of those conversations have, without sufficiently weighty

reasons, been conveyed to other authorities and in part to the

Government's representatives before the Commission.

      The Commission considers, in the light of the parties'

submissions, that this part of the case raises complex issues of law

and of fact under the Convention, the determination of which should

depend on an examination of the merits of the application. The

Commission concludes, therefore, that this part of the application is

not manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it

inadmissible have been established.

      For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

      merits of the case.

  M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                 N. BRATZA

     Secretary                                Acting President

to the First Chamber                        of the First Chamber