AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                        Application No. 12963/87

                        by Margareta and Roger ANDERSSON

                        against Sweden

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 13 October 1989, the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                  S. TRECHSEL

                  F. ERMACORA

                  E. BUSUTTIL

                  G. JÖRUNDSSON

                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                  A. WEITZEL

                  J.-C. SOYER

                  H.G. SCHERMERS

                  H. DANELIUS

                  G. BATLINER

                  J. CAMPINOS

             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

             Sir  Basil HALL

             Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on 13 February 1987

by Margareta and Roger ANDERSSON against Sweden and registered

on 25 May 1987 under file No. 12963/87;

        Having regard to the written observations submitted by the

Government on 8 February 1989 and the applicants on 31 March 1989 as

well as the parties' submissions at the hearing held on 10 October 1989;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

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

summarised as follows.

        The first applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1951.  She

is a nurse.  The second applicant, Roger, is the first applicant's son

and a Swedish citizen.  He was born on 23 July 1974.  Both applicants

are resident at Nybro, Sweden.  The applicants are represented before

the Commission by Mrs.  Siv Westerberg, a lawyer practising at

Gothenburg.

Particular circumstances of the case

        On 5 June 1985 the chairman of the Social Committee No. I of

the Social Council (socialnämndens socialutskott I) of Växjö decided

that Roger should be taken into public care on a provisional basis

under Section 6 of the 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of

Young Persons (lagen med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga,

hereinafter referred to as "the 1980 Act") and that during the period

of investigation he should be placed at the Children's and Juveniles'

Psychiatric Clinic at Växjö.  The provisional care decision was based

on a report of 5 June 1985 made by the social authority of Växjö.

From the report it appears that the applicants were under observation

by the social authorities since Roger was born.  When he started

school in 1981 it was observed that his general adjustment and social

maturity were insufficient.  He was shy, inhibited and insecure.  The

first applicant refused to accept the measures proposed by the social

authorities to help Roger.  She moved from Växjö to Nybro.  It is

concluded in the report that the serious disturbances in Roger's state

of health and in his development, in connection with the first

applicant's behaviour, indicated that he had been treated in a

mentally harmful manner for a considerable period of time.  He was

considered to be in immediate need of care on account of an

increasingly serious risk for his health and development.  It was

moreover feared that the first applicant would seriously impede the

continued investigation.

        On 11 June 1985 the social authorities decided to prohibit

contact between the applicants awaiting the decision of the County

Administrative Court (länsrätten) of Kronoberg County on the care

issue.  The prohibition was to be reconsidered as soon as it could be

considered not to be harmful to Roger to have contact with his mother.

The first applicant appealed against the decision to the County

Administrative Court.

        The provisional care order was submitted for confirmation to

the County Administrative Court, which upheld it on 14 June 1985,

giving inter alia the following reasons:

        "From the investigation in the case it appears inter

        alia that Roger's behaviour in school has been reserved

        and inhibited and that he has isolated himself from his

        schoolmates.  During the spring term 1985 he has been

        absent from school to a great extent and from 3 May he has

        completely failed to attend.  Extensive help and support

        have for a long time been offered to Margareta Andersson.

        She has refused to accept it.  When the social authorities

        of Växjö contacted the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric

        Clinic at Växjö, Roger and Margareta Andersson moved to

        Nybro.  The schools of Växjö and Nybro have expressed strong

        concern about Roger's mental health.  Considering this and

        the statement made by Deputy Chief Doctor Mauri Rautavuori,

        the County Administrative Court finds that there are such

        deficiencies in the care of Roger that it is probable that

        care will be provided for him under Section 1 second

        paragraph 1 of the 1980 Act and that a court decision on

        public care cannot be awaited considering the risk for

        Roger's health and development as well as the fact that the

        continued investigation may be seriously obstructed."

        In a judgment given on the same day the County Administrative

Court upheld the decision of 11 June 1985 to prohibit contact between

the applicants.  The Court's judgment was based on a statement made by

the expert witness Deputy Chief Doctor Mauri Rautavuori of the

Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic.  He stated that

Margareta Andersson felt more agony and anxiety than Roger in the

situation they were in.  He considered it necessary to control her

contact with Roger as it would be too dramatic for Roger if she was

allowed to visit him.  It was so painful for Margareta Andersson to be

separated from Roger that she could not handle the situation.  She

needed as much help as Roger and he must not be given the task of

taking care of his mother.  Doctor Mauri Rautavuori concluded that a

prohibition of access was necessary as long as the first applicant was

in such a bad condition.

        The first applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of

Appeal (kammarrätten) of Jönköping against the judgment and the

decision whereby the County Administrative Court had confirmed the

provisional care order and the prohibition on access.  The

Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the appeal in a judgment of

27 June 1985.  The first applicant made a further appeal to the

Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten), which on 26 July 1985

decided not to grant leave to appeal.

        On 28 June 1985 the Social Council applied to the County

Administrative Court for a decision that Roger be taken into public

care pursuant to Section 1 second paragraph 1 of the 1980 Act.  The

application was based on a report of 20 June 1985 made by the social

authority.  The Court held a hearing in the case.  By a judgment of

17 July 1985 the Court decided in favour of the Social Council's

application, giving inter alia the following reasons:

        "From the investigation in the case it does not appear that

        Margareta Andersson's way of keeping her home can be criticised.

        As far as it can be assessed, the material conditions are

        satisfactory.  However, the investigation shows that the

        conditions in the home are likely to jeopardise a young

        person's emotional and social development.  Before the County

        Administrative Court Margareta Andersson has expressed the view

        that the information in the Social Council's application is

        essentially incorrect.  In view of the investigation of the

        case, Margareta Andersson must hereby be considered to

        confirm the allegation that she is unable to understand Roger's

        situation.  It has clearly appeared from Roger's behaviour that

        his social and emotional development is deranged.  It is

        therefore essential for Roger that he receives help and support

        to overcome his problems.  In view of Margareta Andersson's

        attitude it is not likely that the necessary measures can be

        taken by her or with her approval.  The task of rehabilitating

        Roger must therefore be entrusted to the social authorities.

        The Social Council's application shall therefore be granted."

        The first applicant appealed against the judgment to the

Administrative Court of Appeal.

        On 15 July 1985 Roger ran away from the Children's and

Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic at Växjö where he had been placed when

provisionally taken into care.  He returned to the Clinic on

27 August 1985 and was brought home on 3 September 1985 after the

first applicant had made a written agreement of 26 August 1985 with

the Social Council that the public care of Roger should be carried out

in her home.  The agreement contained provisions concerning the care

of Roger and the social authority's measures of assistance to the

applicants.  As a result of this agreement, the first applicant

withdrew her appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal.

        As from March 1986 Roger did not attend school and on

28 April 1986 the Chairman of the Social Committee No.  I of the Social

Council of Växjö decided to place him at the Children's and Juveniles'

Psychiatric Clinic awaiting a transfer to a foster home.  The Social

Committee decided on 22 May 1986 to place Roger in a foster home at

Glimåkra.

        On 29 April 1986 Roger was taken to the Clinic and on

13 May 1986 he ran away.  He was brought back to the Clinic by the

police on 5 August 1986.

        The first applicant appealed to the County Administrative

Court against the decision to place Roger in a foster home.  The Court

held a hearing at which she was present and assisted by counsel under

the Legal Aid Act (rättshjälpslagen) and the second applicant was

represented by official counsel (offentligt biträde).  The Court

rejected the appeal by a judgment of 19 August 1986, in which it

stated:

        "Margareta Andersson has inter alia stated the following:

        She has now realised that Roger's development could be at

        risk.  The risk is not as serious as to warrant placing

        him in a foster family.  The deficiencies are not only due

        to her.  She has endeavoured to make Roger go to school

        but he has not received enough support from the school.

        Kristina Wintler, the home therapist, has not succeeded in

        establishing any contact with Roger.  She and Roger have

        felt that Kristina Wintler was more controlling them than

        helping.  Roger's needs would be satisfied in a better way

        with a male home therapist with technical interests.  After

        having been fetched by the police Roger is upset and angry

        with the authorities.  Roger will not remain in the foster home.

        Most of what is stated in the investigation report made by

        the social secretary, Rolf Olsson, is untrue.  This summer

        she has rented a summer-house and has been out camping with

        Roger, after he absconded from the Children's and Juveniles'

        Psychiatric Clinic.  Roger has been calm and harmonious and

        has been seeing two children of his own age.  The reason why

        she and Roger have stayed away during the summer is that

        Roger needs his summer holiday.  If he had not had it he

        would have made up for it by not attending school in the autumn.

        The Social Council states that the home where it is intended

        that Roger should be placed is a private home for care and

        residence.  It is a very qualified home where the spouses

        professionally take care of children.  The wife is a trained

        social pedagogue and the husband has general practical

        experience.  They get support from the Children's Psychiatric

        Clinic at Kristianstad and from the officials of the social

        authority at Broby.  The home is situated at Glimåkra where

        the spouses live in an old farm.

        The Deputy Chief Doctor of the Children's and Juveniles'

        Psychiatric Clinic at Växjö, Mauri Rautavuori, heard as

        an expert witness, has inter alia stated the following:

        Roger is very reserved and careful in his contacts with

        the personnel at the Clinic.  However, it is easier for

        the personnel to get their questions answered now than

        it was when Roger stayed at the Clinic one year ago.

        Roger has not developed like a normal twelve-year-old boy.

        He has very little experience of close social contact with

        children of his own age.  He has not got a profound basis for

        further developing his personality.  There is a considerable

        risk that Roger develops feelings of inferiority and also

        a risk of anti-social behaviour and of symptoms of dependence

        that can lead to psychotic behaviour.  Margareta Andersson

        is tied by Roger's demands and Roger is the one who decides.

        Roger has got a potential for development in another home.  It

        is not a solution that Roger returns home.  Margareta Andersson

        has tried to manage Roger but has not succeeded in spite of

        the help she has received.  The only way to help Roger, so

        that he can take the responsibility for his own life and his

        own behaviour, is to place him in another family.

        Kristina Wintler, heard as a witness, has inter alia stated

        the following: She has worked as a home therapist in the

        Andersson family since autumn 1985.  On average she has spent

        approximately four hours a day from Monday to Friday in the home.

        Her main task was to ensure that Roger went to school by

        taking him there.  However, this did not work and her

        contribution became directed to what she could do in the home.

        Margareta and Roger Andersson were reserved towards everyone

        and it was difficult to engage them in any activity.  She

        never got any real contact with Roger.  Sometimes she could

        come close to him when he was interested in something.  Maybe

        it would have been better to have a male home therapist.

        Roger had the power at home.  When she intervened against

        Roger, Margareta Andersson interfered.  Margareta Andersson

        cannot cope with the situation when she is alone with Roger.

        She tried but did not succeed.  The school declares that

        nothing more can be done about Roger's situation.  Although

        there was a conference concerning Roger every week during the

        autumn term 1985 and the beginning of the spring term 1986

        nothing could be done to help him.

        The County Administrative Court makes the following

        assessment.  During the time Roger has stayed at home he

        has been the object of extensive care measures which have

        not led to the intended result.  Margareta Andersson has not,

        with the help she has received, managed to give Roger the

        care he needs.  In order to let Roger develop favourably he

        must be placed in another home.  The change in the care of

        Roger that has been decided by the Social Council must be

        considered to be in Roger's best interest.  The appeal shall

        therefore be rejected."

        On 23 August 1986 Roger was transferred to the foster home at

Glimåkra.

        The first applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of

Appeal of Jönköping.  The Court held a hearing in the case on 16

September 1986, at which the first applicant was present and the

applicants were represented in the same way as in the County

Administrative Court.  The Administrative Court of Appeal in its

judgment of 17 October 1986 rejected the appeal while making the

following assessment:

        "According to Section 11 paragraph 2 of the 1980 Act

        the Social Council can let the child stay in his own home,

        if this is considered to promote his care.  Roger has

        been taken into care according to the Act because the

        conditions in Margareta Andersson's home were unsuitable for

        him and because of Margareta Andersson's inability to give

        him the care and security he needed.  In spite of this the

        Social Council let Roger return to Margareta Andersson's home

        after only a short stay at the Children's and Juveniles'

        Psychiatric Clinic, be it with intensive measures of

        support.  He was thereafter permitted to stay there for

        approximately one year.  During this time Margareta Andersson

        has had the opportunity of showing that Roger could be given

        the support he needed for his development at home.  However,

        no change has occurred, which has been shown particularly by

        the school situation.

        It is evident that Roger must be given the opportunity of

        developing under other conditions.  Care in a qualified foster

        home should be envisaged in the first place, as Roger would

        then have better possibilities to develop normal social

        relations and build up his own identity.  The Social Council

        therefore had good reasons for their decision to transfer

        Roger from Margareta Andersson's home."

        The first applicant appealed against the judgment to the

Supreme Administrative Court which, by a decision of 19 December 1986,

refused to grant leave to appeal.

        As a result of the fact that Roger had twice run away from the

Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic the social welfare

officers in charge of his case decided on 6 August 1986 to prohibit

contact between him and the first applicant.  The decision was taken

under Section 16 paragraph 1 of the 1980 Act and was confirmed by the

Social Council on 21 August 1986.  As a result of the decision,

the first applicant was prohibited from contacting Roger by

telephone and from corresponding with him.  The decision was to be in

force until further notice, awaiting that the first applicant's access

could be arranged without any harm being caused to Roger.  The basis

for the decision was a report of 15 August 1986 made by the social

authorities of Växjö.  From the report it appears that the first

applicant's own behaviour and Roger's reactions with regard to her

behaviour were decisive when the prohibition of access was issued.

It was noted that she had taken part in Roger's previous escapes and

that she had made statements about leaving the country or moving away

to some place unknown to the authorities to avoid being persecuted.

It was deemed necessary, for the time being, to prevent the first

applicant from seeing Roger.  It was found that she had not been

co-operative in any way while Roger stayed at the Clinic.  When she

was refused contact with him she had instead given him money and

written messages telling him that she would soon help him to escape

from the Clinic or, if this did not succeed, from the foster home at

Glimåkra.  Money and such messages were hidden among clothes and other

things she brought to Roger.

        The first applicant appealed to the County Administrative

Court requesting that the decision to prohibit access be revoked and

claiming the right to speak to Roger on the telephone.

        The Court held a hearing in the case at which Margareta Andersson

was present and assisted by counsel.  By a judgment of 12 September 1986,

the Court decided not to examine the appeal insofar as it concerned

the prohibition of telephone communications and to reject the

remainder of the appeal.  The reasons of the Court read as follows:

        "Margareta Andersson has stated inter alia the following:

        The prohibition of access decided by the Social Committee

        goes beyond what is needed to carry out the care.  The

        decision was taken before Roger was transferred to Glimåkra.

        The conditions have changed now that Roger is living at

        Glimåkra.  There is nothing to indicate that she has a

        negative influence on Roger.  She has not interfered with the

        present care and she has not tried to sabotage the measures

        now taken.  The resentment she has shown is based on the

        fact that she does not understand why there has to be any

        care.  It is true that the bags with clothes that she gave

        Roger when he stayed at the Children's and Juveniles'

        Psychiatric Clinic contained money and a card with a message

        that she would help him to leave the place.  This does not

        mean that she encouraged him to run away.  It was her way

        of telling Roger that by appealing against the care decision

        she would try to get him home.  Roger has a lot of

        difficulties in the foster home at Glimåkra.  When speaking

        with the foster home over the telephone she has been informed

        that Roger sits alone in his room crying.  He wants to go

        home.  Moreover he is being used as domestic help there.  He

        has to wash up and clean.

        The Social Council has stated that, bearing in mind what

        has happened in the case, it has been necessary to prohibit

        access.  This includes a prohibition for Margareta Andersson

        to speak to Roger on the telephone.  The Council has done a

        lot to get closer to Margareta Andersson and to create

        an effective co-operation with her.  This has not been

        successful.  They do not wish to risk that the new efforts

        turn into a failure.  The Children's and Juveniles'

        Psychiatric Clinic has emphasised that a failure could

        involve a considerable risk to Roger.  Statements made by

        Margareta Andersson show that she is prepared to take

        Roger away.  Roger is developing well in the foster home.

        The Council's aim is to improve the co-operation with

        Margareta Andersson.  The intention is that at least one

        month should pass after the transfer before there is any

        contact between Margareta Andersson and Roger.  If a

        suitable agreement can be made with Margareta Andersson

        the Council intends to let her see Roger at the forthcoming

        turn of the months September/October.

        The County Administrative Court makes the following

        assessment.  The decision to take Roger into public care

        under the 1980 Act and his transfer to Glimåkra are based

        on the fact that Margareta Andersson has been unable to

        give Roger the care he needs.  On two occasions, when Roger

        has been staying at the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric

        Clinic at Växjö, he has run away and with the help of

        Margareta Andersson managed to stay away for long periods of

        time.  During Roger's last stay at the Children's and Juveniles'

        Psychiatric Clinic Margareta Andersson tried to give him a

        message which, in his eyes, must have implied that she would

        take him away from the Clinic.  Considering what has been

        mentioned above and that the care that has just started should

        continue without interruptions and that Margareta Andersson

        should not influence Roger, the County Administrative Court

        finds that the Social Committee has good reasons for its

        decision to prohibit access.  However, if a functioning

        co-operation with Margareta Andersson can be achieved, a

        meeting should take place between Margareta Andersson and

        Roger as planned by the Social Council.

        According to Section 20 paragraph 3 of the 1980 Act a

        decision of the Social Council may be appealed to the County

        Administrative Court when the Council has decided about access

        to the child under Section 16.  The County Administrative

        Court finds that the Social Committee, by prohibiting telephone

        contact with Roger, has limited Margareta Andersson's access

        according to Section 11 of the Act.  According to Section 20

        of the Act such a decision cannot be appealed."

        The first applicant appealed against the judgment to the

Administrative Court of Appeal, which rejected the appeal in a

judgment of 11 November 1986 on the following grounds:

        "According to Section 16 of the 1980 Act, the Social Council

        may restrict the guardian's right of access to the child,

        when it is necessary in order to carry out the care.  Such

        a restriction may concern a prohibition of correspondence or

        telephone communications between the parent and the child as

        well as keeping the place of residence of the child secret.

        When the provision is applied the aim should be not to

        restrict the right of access more than is absolutely necessary.

        The appealed decision to prohibit access includes, according

        to the Social Council's statement at the hearing before the

        County Administrative Court, a prohibition of correspondence

        and of telephone communications.  The entire decision is based on

        Section 16 of the Act.  The County Administrative Court should

        therefore have examined those parts of the decision which

        concerned prohibition of correspondence and of telephone

        communications.  Margareta Andersson's appeal should

        accordingly be examined with respect to the restriction as

        a whole.

        In the judgment of the County Administrative Court, which was

        upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal, it was decided

        that Roger should be transferred from  his mother's home to

        a foster home.  The care outside the parental home is aimed

        at solving Roger's problems and at removing the deficiencies

        which prevailed at Margareta Andersson's home.  During the

        care period the Social Council shall in principle try to

        maintain contact between Roger and Margareta Andersson, but

        it can be forced by the circumstances to restrict contact

        under the above-mentioned Section of the Act.

        From the documents and from the investigation in the case,

        carried out before the judgment of the Administrative Court of

        Appeal mentioned above, it appears that Margareta Andersson lacks

        understanding for Roger's need of care and that she is opposed

        to Roger being placed outside her home.  Margareta Andersson

        has prevented earlier attempts to place Roger away from home

        by fetching Roger and by staying with him in a place unknown

        to the authorities.  What happened during her last meeting

        with Roger as well as what she has stated before the

        Administrative Court of Appeal give reason to presume that she

        will not accept that Roger remain in the foster home.

        It is an absolute condition for the success of the care

        in the foster home that Roger feels secure when staying there.

        The foster parents must furthermore be given the possibility

        to deal peacefully with Roger's problems.  As soon as

        Margareta Andersson is able to accept the care that is being

        provided and the transfer to the foster home and is able

        to participate in the care, she should have the opportunity

        of seeing Roger.  However, Margareta Andersson has shown that

        for the time being she is not prepared to take part in the care

        in this way.  In these circumstances there are good reasons

        for the decision of the Social Council to prohibit access,

        including the prohibition of correspondance and of telephone

        communications."

        The first applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative

Court, which refused to grant leave to appeal in a decision of

19 December 1986.

        Roger fell ill with diabetes in the beginning of 1987 and

was placed in a hospital for care.  He stayed in the hospital from 3

until 25 February 1987.  The circumstances concerning his stay in the

hospital are disputed by the parties.  The applicants allege that the

first applicant wrote letters to Roger which were seized by the hospital

personnel and handed over to the foster father who never forwarded

them to Roger.  They further allege that on 19 February 1987, when the

first applicant after several requests finally obtained the right to

visit Roger in the hospital, she was thrown out from the hospital by

force by the foster father who had arrived while she was there.  This

happened when she tried to help Roger who was being assaulted by the

foster father.

        The applicants have further pointed out that their

representative, Mrs.  Westerberg, tried to convince the hospital

personnel not to send Roger back to the foster home.  Because of

Roger's expressed fear to go back, she considered that there was a

great risk that he would attempt an escape which could seriously

endanger his health, considering his disease.  However, Roger was sent

back to the foster home.

        The Government submit that during Roger's stay in hospital,

much effort was put into making the first applicant visit him.  She

was very upset and seemed to screen herself off from the contacts

taken to agree on the form for such visits.  On 19 February 1987 she

came to the hospital to visit Roger.  She then tried to take Roger

with her, which was prevented by a doctor.  The foster father was also

present on this occasion.  When he arrived at the hospital there was a

row.

        The first applicant reported the above-mentioned incidents,

including what she considered to be theft of letters she had sent to

Roger and the money enclosed in them, to the police, but the public

prosecutor decided on 8 May 1987 to discontinue the criminal

investigation against the foster father and the hospital personnel.

The first applicant's appeal against the decision was rejected by the

Director of the Malmö Public Prosecution Authority (åklagar-

myndigheten) on 13 August 1987.  In the criminal investigation a

statement by a doctor, who witnessed the scene between the first

applicant and the foster father, is included.  He states that when the

first applicant arrived at the hospital the hospital personnel

contacted the foster father as they had been instructed that the first

applicant was not allowed to be alone with Roger.  When the foster

father arrived the first applicant stated that she did not wish to be

in the same room as the foster father.  She then attacked him, she

hit him on his chest and arms with her fists.  At the same time Roger

grabbed a clothes-hanger and started hitting the foster father over

the back.  The doctor stopped Roger from hitting the foster father.

He saw the foster father grab the first applicant's wrists and force

her out of the room.

        From a medical certificate dated 24 February 1987 it appears

that the first applicant had bruises on her arms and legs that could

have been caused when the foster father forced her out from the

hospital ward.

        The first applicant submitted a request to the Social

Committee in 1987 that, in the first place, the care of Roger be

terminated and, in the second place, there be no restriction of the

right of access.  The Social Council's Social Committee No.  I rejected

the request on 9 April 1987.  Subsequently, in a decision of 14 May 1987

the Social Committee decided that the meetings between the applicants

should be planned and carried out with the assistance of the social

authority in Växjö.  The meetings should take place at the spouses

Helgesson's home at Sibbhult, which was an extra foster home, and the

foster father should be present at the meetings.  This decision was an

explanation of their previous decision, which was not meant as an

absolute prohibition of access.

        The Social Council's decisions were based on a report by the

social authority of 30 March 1987.  According to the report, the extra

foster home which was linked to Roger's foster home should function as

support and as a supplementary family and enable Margareta Andersson

and Roger to meet there without disturbing the work of the regular

foster family.  A special assistant was employed to work in the foster

home.  Furthermore, a supervisory contact was established with the

Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic at Kristianstad.  Roger

was initially taught in the foster home but was gradually transferred

to school.  Margareta Andersson met Roger in the extra foster home on

a few occasions during the autumn of 1986.  Immediately after one of

these meetings Roger tried to run away.

        The first applicant appealed against the decisions of

9 April and 14 May 1987 to the County Administrative Court, requesting,

in the first place, that the public care be terminated and, in the

second place, that there be no restriction of the right of access.

        The County Administrative Court held a hearing in the case on

21 May 1987 at which the first applicant was present and assisted by

counsel and the second applicant was represented by official counsel.

At the request of the Social Council the foster father, Henry Meijer,

was heard as a witness and, at the first applicant's request, Mats

Eriksson, the home therapist in the foster home, was also heard.  The

Court gave judgment on 1 June 1987, in which it rejected the appeal.

It amended the Social Committee's decision by providing that only the

spouses Helgesson were to be present at the meetings between Roger and

the first applicant.  The following reasons were given:

        "Roger has been in public care under the 1980 Act since

        17 July 1985.  After an initial stay at a Child Psychiatric

        Clinic Roger was allowed to stay at home for almost eight

        months.  Since 23 August 1986 he has been staying in the

        foster home at Glimåkra.  The decision on public care as well

        as the subsequent decision to transfer Roger are based on

        Margareta Andersson's inability to provide the care and security

        that Roger needed.  During Roger's stay at home he was the

        object of qualified supportive measures without any change

        being accomplished.  Roger now stays in a qualified foster

        home.  During his stay there he has changed in a noticeable and

        favourable way.  He has become considerably more open.  He

        takes part in the school teaching and travels to school

        and back on his own.  He visits the kindergarten and takes

        part in its activities.  He has a friend with whom he

        associates.  All this confirms the previous assessments that

        Margareta Andersson has been unable to give Roger the care he

        needed and that public care under the Act was necessary.

        Apparently Margareta Andersson has not wanted to realise

        Roger's favourable development.  The picture she gives of the

        foster home and the way Roger is treated there is completely

        without nuances and in the County Administrative Court's view

        incorrect.  Nothing has appeared in the case which shows that

        Margareta Andersson is more capable of taking care of Roger

        now than at the time when he was taken into care or at the

        time when he was transferred to the foster home.  To interrupt

        the care and Roger's favourable development would be directly

        harmful to him.  The conditions are not such that the care can

        be terminated.

        Concerning the restriction of the right of access the Social

        Council has stated that there is no restriction as to how

        many meetings can be arranged.  The restriction also includes

        a prohibition of contact by letters or telephone.

        According to Section 16 of the 1980 Act the Social Council may

        restrict the guardian's right of access, when it is necessary

        in order to carry out the care of the child.  When applying

        this provision the aim should be not to restrict the right to

        access more than is absolutely necessary.

        Margareta Andersson has shown at the hearing before the County

        Administrative Court that she does not understand Roger's

        need for care.  Her only aim is Roger's return home.

        Her conduct creates a conflict of loyalties for Roger.

        Margareta Andersson's actions when Roger ran away from the

        Child Clinic at Växjö, Roger's attempt to run away after her

        visit to the foster home, and Roger's behaviour when she

        visited the hospital at Kristianstad, show that a restriction

        of access is necessary for the successful care of Roger.  The

        County Administrative Court finds that the Social Council had

        good reasons to restrict the right of access including contact

        by letters or telephone.  Margareta Andersson has stated that

        she does not intend to visit Roger if Henry Meijer (the foster

        father) is present during the visits.  The County Administrative

        Court finds it important that the Social Committee's decision

        be modified so as to make Margareta Andersson visit Roger.

        This can initially only be done if Henry Meijer is not present

        during the visits.  In order to facilitate the establishing of

        contact no one else appointed by the Social Council should be

        present.  During the visit, which is to take place in the

        spouses Helgesson's home, it is enough if the spouses Helgesson

        are present.  No other change should be made in the decision

        on restriction of access."

        The first applicant appealed against the judgment to the

Administrative Court of Appeal.  The Court held a hearing on 2 July 1987

at which the first applicant was present and the applicants were

represented in the same way as in the County Administrative Court.  In

a judgment of 10 July 1987 the Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed

the judgment of the County Administrative Court.  The Court stated

inter alia the following:

        "Public care under the 1980 Act has been provided for Roger

        in a judgment that has acquired legal force.  The issue in

        this case is firstly whether the care should be terminated.

        According to Section 5 of the Act the care should be

        terminated when it is no longer necessary.  In support of her

        request Margareta Andersson has, through her counsel, mainly

        alleged that the public care interferes with the provisions of

        the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

        and Fundamental Freedoms and accused the social authorities

        of false motives and misuse of power.  There is nothing in

        the case which indicates that public care is no longer

        necessary.  Margareta Andersson's first claim must be rejected.

        It should be added that the Administrative Court of Appeal can

        only apply Swedish law in force.  The extensive criticism

        of the system, on which the appellant, through her counsel,

        has mainly based her claim, cannot be decisive for the

        Administrative Court of Appeal's assessment of whether the

        public care should be terminated.  The possibilities for

        Margareta Andersson to regain the actual care of her son,

        which should be the obvious aim, depend on whether she, in the

        present situation, can co-operate with the social authorities

        and the family with whom Roger is staying.

        At the hearing it was said that Margareta Andersson had visited

        Roger on 24 June at the spouses Helgesson's home at Sibbhult.

        The visit was the first meeting between the two since

        February and turned out well.  The exact conditions for the

        future contacts - as well as the future care - depend to a

        great extent on Margareta Andersson's attitude and conduct.

        The Administrative Court of Appeal considers that further

        successful contact must be established at the home of the

        Helgessons before other kinds of contact can be allowed.

        Margareta Andersson's second claim is therefore also

        rejected.

        The Administrative Court of Appeal has no legal competence

        to decide where Roger should stay.  Since Margareta Andersson

        has made serious - although essentially unsubstantiated -

        accusations against the foster home at Glimåkra, the

        Administrative Court of Appeal considers that the degree of

        truth in the accusations should be investigated by the social

        authorities as well as the possibility of placing Roger in a

        foster home in which Margareta Andersson might have more

        confidence."

        The first applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative

Court.  In her appeal she pointed out inter alia that Roger had been

refused the right to receive correspondence from other persons as well

as from her.  She mentioned specially that a letter inviting Roger to

his cousin's confirmation and letters from a civil rights association

informing him of his rights and freedoms according to the Swedish

Constitution had not been forwarded to him.  She alleged that this was

unlawful.  She also pointed out that, although she and Roger were

Christian believers, the Social Council and the foster father had

prohibited Roger from visiting the vicar at Glimåkra.  The Supreme

Administrative Court refused to grant leave to appeal in a decision of

20 August 1987.

        The applicants' representative, Mrs.  Westerberg, applied for

permission to visit Roger in the foster home as his representative

before the Commission.  The social authority refused to grant the

request by a decision of 17 August 1987.

        The first applicant requested legal aid for her and the second

applicant in order to bring their case to the Commission.  On 4 June 1987

their request was refused by the Legal Aid Committee (rättshjälpsnämnden)

of Malmö.  The first applicant appealed against the decision to the

Appeal Council for Legal Aid (besvärsnämnden för rättshjälpen) which

in a decision of 21 September 1987 rejected the appeal.

        In November 1987 the first applicant again requested, in the

first place, that the care of Roger be terminated and, in the second

place, that there be no restriction of her right of access.  The Social

Council rejected the request.  Subsequently, on 5 February 1988, the

Social Council's Social Committee No.  I made a new decision on the

first applicant's right of access to Roger.  According to the decision

Roger would visit the first applicant once a month with the spouses

Helgesson and between these visits the first applicant could meet

Roger in the home of the spouses Helgesson.  There was to be no

restriction of correspondence between the first applicant and Roger.

It was added that telephone communications ought to be initiated by

Roger.

        The first applicant appealed against the decisions to the

County Administrative Court requesting, in the first place, that the

care be terminated, in the second place, that it be carried out in her

home and, in the third place, that there be no restrictions on her right

of access.  The Court held a hearing on 10 February 1988 at which the

first applicant was represented by counsel and the second applicant by

official counsel.  In a judgment of 17 February 1988 the Court decided

to reject the appeal insofar as it concerned the termination of the

public care, not to examine the request that the care be carried out

in the first applicant's home and to add to the Social Council's

decision on the right of access that the first applicant should have

the right to meet Roger at least twice a month in the spouses

Helgesson's home.

        The Court made the following assessment:

        "The County Administrative Court has previously decided

        not to hear Roger as a witness.  There are no reasons to

        depart from that decision.

        The decision on care under the 1980 Act was based on

        Margareta Andersson's inability to provide Roger with the

        care and security he needed.  The issue in this case is

        in the first place whether the care should be terminated.

        Decisive for this issue is Margareta Andersson's ability

        to provide the necessary care for Roger so as to eliminate

        the risk that he will relapse into his previous behaviour.

        During Roger's stay at Glimåkra a positive change has

        occurred while Margareta Andersson's situation as well

        as her opinion of the social authorities apparently have

        not changed.  If the care is discontinued there is a great

        risk that Roger will relapse into his previous behaviour,

        even though he now seems to be mentally stronger.  In view

        of this the conditions are not such that the care should

        be discontinued.

        In a decision of 26 October 1987, the County Administrative

        Board of Kristianstad County, in view of previous

        complaints about the foster home, found no reason to

        criticise the foster father's way of running the activities.

        The County Administrative Board decided not to take any

        further action.  In this case it is the Social Council's task

        to provide the care for Roger and it is responsible for the

        care he receives and the County Administrative Court may not

        review it.

        The Social Council has not decided on Margareta Andersson's

        request that the care continue in her home.  The County

        Administrative Court cannot legally decide where Roger shall

        stay.  Margareta Andersson's request cannot be examined.

        Concerning the issue of restriction of access the Social

        Council has stated that it intends to assess generously

        Margareta Andersson's request to meet Roger at Glimåkra.

        Furthermore, the Social Council has stated that the restriction

        does not include a prohibition for Margareta Andersson and

        Roger to meet in private, but it does mean that someone from

        the Helgesson family must be present in the home where they

        meet.

        In view of Margareta Andersson's previous actions and her

        attitude as concerns the care issue, the County Administrative

        Court finds that the restriction of access should continue.

        Such a restriction should be designed so as not to prevent

        a successful contact from being established.  The County

        Administrative Court finds that the restriction decided by the

        Social Committee has been so designed.  In order to avoid any

        possible uncertainty the County Administrative Court considers

        it suitable to state that the meetings in the Helgesson

        family's home at Glimåkra can take place at least twice a

        month.  Apart from that, the County Administrative Court

        confirms the Social Committee's decision on the right of

        access.  What has thus been mentioned shall apply until the end

        of the school term in the spring of 1988.  Thereafter a new

        assessment should be made."

        On 26 February 1988 Roger was taken to hospital after having

alleged that he had injected an overdose of insulin.

        The first applicant appealed against the judgment of

17 February 1988 to the Administrative Court of Appeal.  The Court

held a hearing on 20 April 1988 and in a judgment of 27 April 1988

decided to terminate the care of Roger.  The Court considered that,

although the main reason for Roger's previous behaviour -

Margareta Andersson's inability to provide him with the care and

security he needed - had not been removed, an important part of the

aim sought when he was taken into care had been achieved.  Roger now

had good social relations and a certain self-esteem.

        Roger returned directly from hospital to his mother at Nybro

where he has been living since.  He has been attending school and has

worked well according to his teacher.

Relevant domestic law

        Section 16 of the 1980 Act, which was applied by the Social

Council and by the courts when restricting the first applicant's right

of access, reads as follows:

        (Swedish)

        "Om det är nödvändigt med hänsyn till ändamålet med

        vård eller omhändertagande med stöd av denna lag, får

        socialnämnden

        1.  bestämma hur den rätt till umgänge med den unge som

        kan tillkomma en förälder eller någon annan som har

        vårdnaden om honom skall utövas eller

        2.  bestämma att den unges vistelseort inte skall röjas

        för föräldern eller vårdnadshavaren."

        (English translation)

        "If it is necessary with regard to the purpose of the care

        provided under this Act, the Social Council may

        1.  decide how the right of access to the young person which

        may be enjoyed by a parent or other person who has custody

        of him shall be exercised, or

        2.  decide that the young person's whereabouts may not be

        disclosed to the parent or custodian."

        The following is an extract from the Minister's statement in

the Government Bill concerning Section 16 of the 1980 Act (Government

Bill No. 1979/80:1, Part A, p. 601):

        "The Social Council should, when carrying out the care, as

        far as possible co-operate with the parents and assist in

        maintaining contacts between the parents and the child.  As

        stated previously, a care decision should not give rise

        to other restrictions of the parents' right of access to the

        child than are necessary in order to carry out the care.

        The circumstances might, however, be such that the parents

        during the care period ought not to meet the child.  There

        might for example be a risk that the parents without

        authorisation interfere with the care.  The parents'

        personal circumstances might also, for example after severe

        abuse of alcohol or drugs or if they are mentally ill, be

        such that they should not at all meet the child.

        ....

        The proposed provisions concerning restrictions of the

        right of access should be applied restrictively.  The Social

        Council should only in exceptional cases keep the child's

        residence secret to the parents."

        It is further stated in the Government Bill (p. 503) that when

the County Administrative Court has decided that a child should be

taken into care the responsibility for the care is passed on to the

Social Council.  If the child has been taken into care due to lack of

care for him the Social Council takes over the responsibility for the

care that otherwise falls upon the parents according to the Parental

Code.  As concerns the competence accrued to a doctor if a child in

care is taken into hospital, the Minister states that the doctor

ought not to have a wider competence to exercise the care in the

hospital than the child's parents would have had if the child had not

been in public care.  The doctor can accordingly, to the same extent as

the parents, prevent the child from leaving the hospital.

COMPLAINTS

1.      The applicants complain that they have been victims of a

breach of Article 8 of the Convention as Roger was placed in a foster

home without relevant reasons and as their right of contact was

restricted.

        The second applicant also complains of an interference with

his right to correspondence because of the Social Council's decision

to restrict his right to receive correspondence.  He alleges that the

decision was unlawful since such restrictions may only be imposed on

children taken into care under Section 1 second paragraph 2 and third

paragraph of the 1980 Act and only under special circumstances,

whereas Roger was taken into care under Section 1 second paragraph 1

of the 1980 Act.

2.      The applicants further complain that sending Roger back from

the hospital to the foster home, in spite of the risk of an escape

which could endanger his life because of his diabetes, was a breach of

Roger's right to protection of his life as set forth in Article 2 of

the Convention.

3.      The second applicant alleges that, by being forced to live with

his foster father, whom he hates and who maltreated him by punching him,

and by using him for forced labour, he was subjected to inhuman and

degrading treatment.  He invokes Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention.

4.      The second applicant also complains of an interference with

his right to freedom of religion and of his right to receive

information.  He invokes Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention.  He

maintains that he has been prohibited from visiting the vicar at

Glimåkra and that a letter inviting him to a religious confirmation as

well as letters informing him of his rights and freedoms according to

the Swedish Constitution and other letters have not been forwarded to

him.

5.      The applicants allege that they had no effective remedy

against the decision to restrict the second applicant's right to

receive correspondence, against the refusal to let the first applicant

visit the second applicant in hospital and against the decision of the

prosecutor not to bring action against the hospital personnel for

sending Roger back to the foster home or against the foster father for

assault and, finally, against the decision not to let Roger visit the

vicar.  They complain that their right under Article 13 of the

Convention has been violated.

6.      Finally, the second applicant complains that his right to

petition the Commission has been interfered with by the refusal of the

Swedish Legal Aid Appeals Board to grant him legal aid for this

purpose and by the refusal of the social welfare authorities to permit

his representative, Mrs.  Westerberg, to see him.  He claims that this

constitutes a violation of Article 25 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was introduced with the Commission on

13 February 1987 and registered on 25 May 1987.

        On 12 October 1988 the Commission decided to invite the

Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and

merits of the part of the application which relates to Article 8 of

the Convention except for the justification of the care order as such.

        The Government's observations were dated 8 February 1989 and

the applicants' observations in reply were dated 31 March 1989.

        On 10 July 1989 the Commission decided to invite the parties

to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.

        The hearing was held on 10 October 1989.  The parties were

represented as follows:

        The Government

        Mr.  Carl Henrik EHRENKRONA      Legal Adviser, Ministry for

                                        Foreign Affairs, Agent

        Mrs.  Birgitta GANTING           Legal Adviser, Ministry of

                                        Health and Social Affairs,

                                        Adviser

        The applicants

        Mrs.  Siv WESTERBERG             Lawyer

        Mrs.  Birgitta HELLWIG           Assistant to the lawyer

        The applicants were also present.

THE LAW

1.      The applicants complain that the placement of Roger in public

care without relevant reasons and the restriction on access applied

while he was in care violates Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention,

which reads as follows:

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

and family life, his home and his correspondence.

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 Commission has first examined whether the placement of

Roger in public care and the maintenance in force of the care order

was in conformity with Article 8 (Art. 8).

        The Commission considers that it follows from the case law of

the Convention organs that the maintenance in force of a public care

order constitutes an interference with the parents' and the child's

right to respect for their family life (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Olsson

judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A No. 130, p. 29, para. 59, and

Eriksson judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A No. 156, para. 89).

Consequently, the measures taken in the present case interfered with

the applicants' right to respect for their family life as guaranteed

by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention.

        This interference was justified under Article 8 (Art. 8) if it

was "in accordance with the law", had a legitimate aim under Article

8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) and was "necessary in a democratic society" for

the said aim.

        The Commission is satisfied that the maintenance in force of

the care order until 27 April 1988 was "in accordance with law"

and pursued the legitimate aim under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of

protecting the health and interests of Roger (cf. Olsson judgment,

loc. cit., pp. 30-31, paras. 60-65).

        As regards the question of whether the maintenance in force of

the public care was "necessary in a democratic society", the

Commission recalls that this condition requires that the interference

corresponds to a pressing social need and that it is proportionate to

the legitimate aim pursued.  In determining whether an interference is

"necessary" the Commission will take into account that a margin of

appreciation is left to the Contracting States.  It must determine

whether the reasons adduced to justify the interference are "relevant

and sufficient" (cf. Olsson judgment, loc. cit., pp. 31-32, paras. 67-68).

When examining these questions the Commission will take into account

that Article 8 (Art. 8) includes a procedural requirement that in child-care

cases the parents must have been involved in the decision-making

process (see Eur. Court H.R., W. v. the United Kingdom judgment of

8 July 1987, Series A No. 121, p. 29, para 64).

        The Commission recalls that the initial care order acquired

legal force after the first applicant had withdrawn her appeal against

the care order on the ground that she had concluded an agreement with

the Social Council according to which Roger was to be cared for in her

home.  Subsequently, it was decided that Roger should be transferred

to a foster home.  This decision was appealed by the first applicant

to the County Administrative Court, the Administrative Court of Appeal

and finally to the Supreme Administrative Court which refused leave to

appeal on 19 December 1986.  Following a request from the first

applicant that the care of Roger be terminated the case was again

examined by the administrative courts up to the Supreme Administrative

Court which refused leave to appeal on 20 August 1987.  A further

request that the care be terminated was rejected by the County

Administrative Court on 17 February 1988 but on 27 April 1988 the

Administrative Court of Appeal ordered that the care should terminate.

        The Commission, noting that the applicants have been

represented by legal counsel, considers that there can be no doubt

that they have been sufficiently involved in the decision-making

process.  Moreover, hearings have been held before the County

Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal at which

the Courts have been in a position to hear the first applicant

personally and to listen to the parties' arguments and hear witnesses

and experts.

        From the different court judgments it appears that the

original care order was based on Roger's behaviour at school, his

failure to attend school and that the conditions at home were such as

to jeopardise Roger's emotional and social development.  Roger's

behaviour was considered to be such that his development was

deranged.  Despite extensive assistance measures in the autumn of 1985

and spring of 1986 when Roger was cared for at home, it was considered

that Roger did not receive the care he needed.  It was therefore

necessary to place him in a foster home.

        These reasons were, in the Commission's opinion, clearly

"relevant" for the care decision and, having regard to the margin of

appreciation of the States and the procedures followed it also finds

that the reasons were "sufficient" and that the Swedish authorities

were entitled to think that it was necessary to keep Roger in care

until 27 April 1988.

        It follows that, as regards the maintenance in force of the

care order, the application is manifestly ill-founded within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2.      The Comission has next examined whether the restrictions on

access, including telephone communications and correspondence, were in

conformity with Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.

        As regards the first period of access restrictions from June 1985

until September 1985, the Government submit that the application is

inadmissible for failure to comply with the six months rule in

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

        The Commission agrees with the Government.  The restrictions

here at issue were subject to court proceedings which terminated on

26 July 1985 when the Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to

appeal.  The restrictions applied were discontinued as a result of a

written agreement between the first applicant and the Social Council

on 26 August 1985 and Roger returned home on 3 September 1985.

        Since the application was introduced on 13 Feburary 1987,

which is more than six months after the final decision concerning the

first period of access, it follows that the complaints relating to

this period have been lodged out of time and must be rejected under

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention in conjunction with

Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3).

        The second period of access restrictions lasted from

6 August 1986 to 27 April 1988.  The Government submit that the

applicants' complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning

of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

        The Commission considers that the issues which arise are, in

particular, whether these restrictions were "in accordance with the

law" and "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of

Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.

        After an examination of these issues in the light of the

parties' submissions, the Commission considers that they raise

questions of fact and law which are of such a complex nature that

their determination requires an examination of the merits.  This part

of th application cannot therefore be declared inadmissible as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention, but must be declared admissible, no

other ground for declaring it inadmissible having been established.

3.      The applicants also complain that, in view of the risk of his

escape, sending Roger back from the hospital to the foster home

endangered his life contrary to Article 2 (Art. 2) of the

Convention.  They also allege that Roger's treatment in the foster

home violated Articles 3 and 4 (Art. 3, 4) of the Convention.

        The second applicant also complains of violations of his

rights under Articles 9 and 10 (Art. 9, 10) of the Convention on the

grounds that he has been prevented from visiting a vicar and has not

been permitted  to receive letters addressed to him in the foster

home.

        The Commission has examined these complaints in the light of

the parties' submissions.  It finds, however, that it has not been

established that the facts were such as to disclose a violation of any

of these provisions of the Convention.

        It follows that these parts of the application are manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

4.      The applicants also allege violations of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the

Convention on the ground that they did not have an effective remedy

for their complaints with regard to the decision not to prosecute the

hospital personnel or the foster father and the refusal to let Roger

visit the vicar.

        Having regard to its conclusions above under No. 3 the Commisison

finds that in these respects the applicants cannot be said to have an

"arguable claim" of a violation of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R.,

Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A No. 131, pp. 23-27,

paras. 52-58).  Consequently, Article 13 (Art. 13) does not grant them

a right to an effective remedy for these complaints.

        It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of

the Convention.

        With regard to the complaint of no effective remedy in respect

of the access restrictions the Government argue that the applicants

could have requested that those restrictions be discontinued before

the Social Council and the administrative courts.

        The Commission has carried out a preliminary examination of

this issue in the light of the parties' submissions.  It finds that

the issue whether the first and the second applicant had effective

remedies with regard to the restrictions on access raises questions of

fact and law which are of such a complex nature that their determination

requires an examination of the merits.   This part of the application

cannot therefore be declared inadmissible as being manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of

the Convention, but must be declared admissible, no other ground for

declaring it inadmissible having been established.

5.      Finally, the second applicant alleges a violation of his right

under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention to petition the Commission.

He bases his allegation on two grounds; namely that his representative

was not allowed to meet him in order to prepare the pleadings before

the Commission, and that he was refused legal aid in Sweden to present

his case to the Commission.

        The Commission notes that the application has been brought by

the first applicant both on her own behalf and on behalf of her son

Roger.  She has been fully able to present her case to the Commission.

Moreover, since April 1988 Roger has been living with the first

applicant and he also appeared before the Commission at the hearing.

In these circumstances no issue could arise under Article 25

(Art. 25) on this ground.

        As regards the second ground, the Commission recalls that it

has held that Article 25 (Art. 25) does not oblige a Contracting State to

grant legal aid for the purpose of bringing an application to the

Commission (cf. No. 11373/85, Dec. 11.5.87, to be published in D.R.).

        Consequently, no issue arises in this respect either.

        For these reasons, the Commission

        1.  DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits,

        the complaints relating to the prohibition on access and the

        absence of an effective remedy with regard to those

        restrictions (Articles 8 and 13 (Art. 8, 13) of the Convention);

        2.  DECIDES TO TAKE NO ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPLAINT

        UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONVENTION;

        3.  DECLARES INADMISSIBLE, the remainder of the

        application.

Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission

      H. C. KRÜGER                               C. A. NØRGAARD